Monday, December 31, 2018

You're Still Doing It Wrong















We have covered the indefensible asininity of drug legalization, and arguments against prohibition, before. Here.

And now, post-legalization follies, Borepatch takes note of the fact that taxed and legal weederies are being undercut by criminal cartel pricing, exactly as we predicted two years ago. As we noted in comments to his post, "Almost like Adam Smith was onto something in 1776."

We had moved on, but the commentary discussion from one contributor went on to note:
"My thoughts on pot are similar to my thoughts on guns and liquor. Passing laws and creating an illegal subculture is the problem. Would it be better if people did not smoke pot? Yes. Would it be better if people didn't drink alcohol? Yes. However, prohibition fails. It failed with booze the same way it has failed again. It creates an artificial market, high prices, organized crime, etc. How many murders happened during Prohibition, for money or alcohol? Untaxed alcohol, moonshine, is still a problem where I live. Why? Because hight taxes create a market for the homemade stuff. And we all could go on all day about the effects of gun laws."
We replied to that:
 "ASM826 has pegged the meter and will win the 2018 Unintended Irony Award in a walkaway, just about the time he realizes he has made the perfect rational and logical argument for getting rid of laws against murder.
Because prohibition never works.

Well-played, sir!
That's quite a Brave New World for which you've inadvertently advocated.

The crowd will now watch as you extricate yourself from this predicament."
Borepatch then suggests the answer to that conundrum lies in differentiating between malum prohibitum and malum in se.

Sorry, but no sale.
Drug laws are malum in se laws, whether we recognize them as such or not, because drugs themselves are bad, humans being human and all.

We assume, at the outset, that anarchy is not a desired situation.
That necessitates that society has the right to pass and enforce laws for itself.
And that whatever rights you possess end when they transgress someone else's rights, or impinge on the society, because at that point, you're no longer operating solely on yourself, "in private" and thus no longer committing "victimless" crimes.

Anyone who seriously posits that drug use is or ever can be a victimless crime is living in Fantasyland. The police do not kick down doors on the suspicion that you're minding your own business and getting high while harming no one.

That would require firstly, omniscience on their part just to know you were doing something which, by definition, you're claiming affects no one, and secondly, a degree of maleficence on their part far beyond what we routinely observe (and trust me, they manage to screw the pooch hard and regularly, as we've noted times beyond counting on this blog, but not in that way).

They home in on you because, in 99.98% of situations, you're fucking up egregiously, and doing so in public, which was why somebody/everybody else noticed, and they dropped a dime on you. You were simply too stoned to notice all that.

The fact is that nearly all drug use is in fact harmful, and very nearly if not actually no one keeps their habit concealed, under control, or consequence-free.

The argument that they ever could if only drugs were legal beggars credulity, and makes Nigerian banking e-mails from Solomon Odonkoh look legitimate by comparison.

I've spent nearly a quarter-century working in emergency medicine, and an honest 25% of my patients any given night are there because of chronic alcohol abuse, and the sequellae.
That's 6-years-plus, I've got quite a ways yet to go until retirement, and I'm only one nurse. Pile other drug abuse on - all of it flat-out illegal for most of that period - and we're at between 1/3 and 1/2 my professional career just dealing with life's fuck-ups and their substance problems.

And you want to make all that sh*t legal, because it's a "victimless" crime???

You're. Fucking. High.

Cases in point, from all the way back to both nights this past weekend.

Case one:
Two guys, stoned off their asses on opiates, necessitating an entire light task force (six firefighters, two paramedics), four EMTs, two ambulances, four cops, six nurses, two doctors, two radiology techs, three lab techs, and the administration workers  to deal with for most of four hours. Saving the lives of two total @$$holes, higher than kites, stoned out of their mind to the point of near respiratory arrest and hypothermia, who then proceeded to sign out against medical advice as soon as they were competent and able to do so, and will, in fact, pay for exactly not one fucking cent of the $20,000 of emergency response and medical care that saved their lives, to include any of the taxes that made it possible in the first place.

Every minute I and my colleagues are dealing with their bullshit, we're not working on your grandmother's stroke, or your child's asthma or septic fever. And they brought part of their dope bindle with them, which along with any needles are a hazmat exposure nightmare to every one of twenty people who handled and cared for them. When a firefighter ends up in ICU from carfentanil exposure, or some minimum-wage EMT has to deal with HepC and liver failure in his 30s because of those wastrels, define for me what part of that crime is "victimless".

And considering that a fine in court of $1000 in this state is a felony-level crime, these two pieces of human feces will see not so much as a ticket, let alone prosecution, because they aren't worth the trouble.

For starters, because both were homeless, at least one of them almost certainly here illegally, and neither of them owned any private space to enjoy their dope, even were it legalized.

So let's get serious here: you'd be talking about legalization only for people who had a private domicile in which to partake of their drug(s) of choice; anyone homeless, by definition, lacking that, would be violating the victimless user rules the minute they shot up, because they're ALWAYS "in public".

Case Two:
Couple wasted off their ass in someone's apartment parking lot, bugging out on the ground.
So we've got a tenant complaint they you're violating their right to quietly enjoy their own place of residence.

Stoned in public.
As in completely freaking out, puking everywhere, crawling on all fours, and requiring the whole circus, for the second night in a row in a small, busy ER.
Again, two cops, 6 firefighters, two paramedics, an ambulance, two medics, and the whole ER kit and caboodle, because you thought someone else's residence you were visiting was okay to get stoned off your ass on Ecstasy or or meth or bath salts or whatever shit you ingested, wasting everyone's time for a seven hour process, and for which you will probably skip paying one thin dime.

Had I been the tenant/complainant, it'd have been 50/50 whether I called 9-1-1, or just retrieved a stout pipe, and beat your fucking skulls in, and let cats and possums clean up the mess. Society would be the richer for it.

What should happen?

Let's start with six months at hard labor, in a chain gang, shoveling snow in the winter with a child's sand castle plastic beach shovel, or six months slinging hot tar in the desert sun all summer. Cold nasty gruel breakfast and dinner, protein only if you can catch bugs or rodents in your cell at night, and a daily beating of ten stripes, delivered by the former NFL linebacker kicked out for being too aggressive and violent, every day of that six months. That's for a first offense.

Pass that law, and legalize any damned thing you want, as long as they never impact anyone but themselves.

DUI? Same penalty.
Impaired in public? Same penalty.
Any other crime under the influence? Same penalty.
Too stoned to pay alimony or child support? Same penalty.
Bounced a check? Missed a tax payment? Same penalty.
Not feeding, sheltering, and/or adequately parenting a minor child? Same penalty.
So effed up in public or private that someone had to have your ass dragged to the ER? Same penalty.
Because when you're that fucking addicted, you're going to let it affect your entire life, and quickly, and it will. You've just violated every argument in favor of legalization.

And the minute it does, you're not committing a victimless crime.
So, you pass laws that punish those that can't keep that addiction in their pants, and we can talk. Make sure the judicial daily beatings are included without fail, and I'll even pay you $1 for every second offender you can find. I suspect at the end of six months of that, I'd still have change from a $5 bill.

Third offence: LWOP. Chain gang for life.
We're going to have the cleanest roads and beaches in the country five minutes after that day, and the smallest drug problems.

Harm anyone, anytime, in any way while under the influence:
A short drop and a quick stop. No appeal, no commutation, no parole.
Executed, same day you're sentenced. That's a victimless crime, because you're a societal liability, not an asset.

Not willing to do that?
Fuck you, and your legalization arguments.
You're just a pothead who wants to get high, or someone too lazy to give a shit about what you're doing to blast civilization with caustic acid until you destroy it.

The problem with the so-called "War" on Drugs, is that it's been a forty-year slap-fight on drugs.

You start killing people and bombing cities like we did when we fought a by-God war, and this b.s. would have been over 39 years, 11 months, and 5 days ago. Stop mollycoddling dopers and dealers, period.

We fire-bombed Dresden for lesser offences than Medellin.
Mexico should look like the charred aftermath of a brushfire, all the way to the Guatemalan border, and Panama should be inhabited by nothing but crocodiles and jaguars.

The problem isn't a War On Drugs.
It's the total lack of one.

And the correct solution isn't doing even less, and multiplying the problems.

Oh, and exactly as I suggested in 2016, you can't just legalize; you're going to have to give the shit away free, otherwise the cartels get a vote.

Which means spending my taxes to pay for giving dope to dopers.
O Hell No.

Predictable as sunrise every morning, what was the next suggestion made by the original commenter?
"It would make more sense to legalize it and give it away to anyone that wanted it."

Almost like I knew what I was predicting way back when.

So, to be absolutely clear, you're against government going after Al Capone or Pablo Escobar for wantonly violating laws enacted by the directly-elected representatives of the people in a republic, including murder, because that militarizes the police, but you're in favor of using the IRS to demand, at gunpoint if necessary, and on pain of prison or death, that I pay taxes to provide unlimited drugs to whomever should wish them, from out of the fruits of my labor?

You've simply swapped one criminal enterprise for another, waved your magic wand over it, and called it "better".

Best wishes defending that plan.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was a Paramedic for many many years and the saying we had was
"Alcohol and stupidity are job security"

TCK said...

"We fire-bombed Dresden for lesser offences than Medellin.
Mexico should look like the charred aftermath of a brushfire, all the way to the Guatemalan border, and Panama should be inhabited by nothing but crocodiles and jaguars."

Pretty sure he'd be ok with gunning down smugglers at the border, just not with gunning down everyone indiscriminately.

Anonymous said...

TCK, I'm pretty sure charring Mexico from border to border is indiscriminate.

Ron Merrell said...

I think you might want to refine your argument about drugs being illegal by virtue of being malum in se - as you've stated it ALL drugs are intrinsically bad and/or evil. As a paramedic, you might want to consider wording that more carefully. Personally, when my appendix flared up, I was really glad we had invented morphine.

Anonymous said...

We assume, at the outset, that anarchy is not a desired situation.

Which makes your argument for enforcing your church's rules on the innocent at gunpoint, circular. The Puritans believed the extraterrestrial alien tyrant in the sky made them do it; you don't even have that.

https://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2016/03/drug-legalization-101.html?showComment=1457683553965#c6865117617625702376

As previously mentioned in the above comment to the referred-to post, prior to the Harrison Narcotic Act drugs were legal and the sky didn't fall. People could seek help without being threatened with prison. The taxpayer was not on the hook to pay for addiction-caused health expenses.

The cause of most of the social problems are drug-banners, single-payer-healthcare-planners, and the voters who are their accomplices and accessories. These are much worse than the addicted humans left to experience their self-caused problems.

In the US, the social credit scoring scheme is social media. Where do you think you will rank in the new libertarian future?

Beans said...

Ron, legal use of drugs is okay. I know someone on daily levels of morphine, for serious chronic pain caused by cancer of the spine, that would put most junkies in the grave, and she functions pretty much okay.

Proper use of drugs is okay.

Use drugs to flake out without real medical need, well, flogging is too good for that person. Fun-seeking assholes have made it hard to get proper drugs at a reasonable price for proper ailments.

Here's my solution. Person taking drugs must wear tag saying they were prescribed legally for a valid reason. If person is found passed out with tag, then administer counter agents, because sometimes accidents do happen (like, say, said person's kidneys go slightly wonky and don't quite filter out all the previous doses so the toxic levels build up, yes, seen it happen, dealt with it.) Without tag saying A-Okay, leave the fucking druggie's dying body lying in the road where it can serve as an example to other pieces of shit.

Illegal drug dealers should be hung up on lightpoles in the neighborhood where they were selling until head separates from body due to rot and decomp.

Trust me. Worked in a forensic unit and an anti-drug unit and nothing will piss you off quicker than anything than watching videos of stupid people smoking pot, meth, crack and/or heroin and blowing huge clouds of shit-filled smoke into the room and laughing as their 1 and 2yoa child stumbles through the clouds of poison.

Watched drugs destroy families due to assholes stealing, killing and just, well, destroying in order to get their fix. Stealing vital drugs from cancer patients to get high.

Victimless crime. Bullshit. Bullshit all the way.

So in most states committing a crime with a gun adds to the overall penalty. Why not crime enhancements while under the influence or done in order to get under the influence.

And, yes, I have a serious stake in this. Growing up I was that allergy-ridden kid that everyone made fun of. There were some really effective allergy meds that were taken off the market because assholes found out that they could get really stoned on the good drugs and then die, therefore their asshole families sued the drug companies because their asshole relatives croaked being assholes and using the drugs in an asshole manner. 'T's and Blues.'

And yes, I have been high as a kite and watched the walls fold and the carpet become alive and suck me into it because of bad interactions with some allergy meds. Actifed at high doses is a motherfrucker. Why anyone would willingly do that to themselves for FUN are either mentally ill and a threat to life and need to be locked away or just selfish assholes who need to die and let the rest of the world become a better place.

I have seen my wife, needing urgent care in an ER, be passed over because of the projective vomiting assbags who require multiple shots of Narcan because they should have died an hour ago and they are so fucking wasted that the levels of the drugs they took are past toxic levels. So my wife almost died three times because of these assholes, and once when she was dying from a really infected and septic gall-bladder, wife couldn't get a room because a bunch of assholes had semi-slabbed themselves and wee now filling all the available hospital beds. So 48 hours in the ER hallway waiting for a semi-private bed for a really sick lady because of a mass of drunks and druggies that got wasted on some really bad shit but it wasn't their fault because victimless crime and bullshit like that.

So, anyways, Aesop, you da man. You the real man for standing up and saying the truth about this shit.

Hope it doesn't blow back on you and your job. Because I so frucking totally agree with you.

MOAB the fricking drug cartels out of existence.

Anonymous said...

We won't solve the War on Drugs for the same reason we won't solve the Illegal Immigration Problem.

Too damned many people don't think there are any problems. Other people are either making money, or are given power, authority and a career that will be eneded if they actually ever really solve these problems. So we end up with this half-a--ed perpetually never solved, never improved drug problems and illegal immigration.

There are probably a half dozen things we can do to solve these two problems, ranging from "Kill Them All and Let Their Gods Sort Them Out," to smothering them in some pseudo-Chinese-like Social Credit and Totalitarian Big Brother Authoritarianism.

I just wish we could pick one path and resolve the problems. Except half the people will oppose any solution because they aren't the ones in charge, or worse yet, it might put them and their long held beliefs out of business.

RF

Anonymous said...

My personal opinion on Narcan?

You OD and get Narcan, you get a big D tattooed on your chest, and a referral to drug treatment.
The second time, you get an N, and are escorted to a treatment center.
Third time, you get an R, and are imprisoned in a treatment facilty.
Fourth time? There is no fourth time. The DNR is honored.

Legal weed?

Allow Federalism to work. There are enough states where weed is legal now. Move there.
My opinion is that in ten to twenty more years we are going to realize that marijuana is not a harmless drug. That it really messes up children and teens, and hard core smokers destroy themselves and those around them. Colorado has a few year head start (no pun intended).

Perform a big social science experiment for twenty years. Marijuana free states and free marijuana states. Which ones long term are sane, productive, and which are failed?

Personally Accept responsibility and accountability.

RF

Aesop said...

@Ron,
When I say "drugs", I'm not talking about aspirin or Benadryl, or any legally prescribed and consumed compound.
Let's don't get stuck on stupid.
And as I stated it, the laws against illicit drug use are malum in se in intent. That is not the same thing as saying all drugs of all types are intrinsically evil. Schedule II narcotics like morphine, by definition, have medical utility.
And I'm not a paramedic, thanks.
But any layman should know the medical axiom: dosage makes the poison.
Tylenol kills, regularly. If this is news to you...


For Anonymous I who thinks this post is inconsistent, or that taking issue with drug smuggling is identical with shooting down fruit pickers and dishwashers for not wanting to live in Sh*tholia, I point out that
a) we've done neither
b) we have cause for defending against those causing actual harm for decades and decades, and a border wall would solve most of both problems in short order, and
c) trespassing is not the same as exporting poison, in anyone's jurisprudence since ever.

I'm fine with an all-out war on drug dealers.
You want a war on latinos.
One problem is a felony, the other is merely sociology.
Death is a bit harsh for the latter, absent cause.
If they all grab bandoleers and rifles and ride north en masse, open fire, by all means.
When last I looked, we nipped that problem in the bud around 1916 or so, courtesy of Pershing, Patton, et al.

If you can't tell the difference between the immigration problem and this one, you're probably not tall enough for the Internet.
Thanks for playing, and we'll have some lovely parting gifts for you on your way back to Candy Crush.

Aesop said...

@Anonymous 11:26
To which church do you refer? You're assuming facts not in evidence, so your entire retort there falls apart.
Reading comprehension: actually still a thing.

Then you go on to riff on a comment from 2 years ago, which ignores the historical reality that the situation then led to exactly the crackdown on laissez faire drug availability that was already an obvious problem over 100 years ago.
And the world didn't collapse when we did it then, either. So that's two strikes, and you're arguing against yourself.

When you repeal the entire current edifice of socialism to the size and amount of government that existed in 1914, drop us a line. We'll wait while you get right on that. But your nostalgia for a time and conditions you never lived in is commendable, in a delusional living-in-a-fairytale sort of way. If things weren't that bad then, they wouldn't have passed that law then either. So clearly, it was nowhere as idyllic as you pretend, even back then.
IIRC, we also didn't have much in the way of pharmacopeia then in the first place, it being decades before everything except aspirin and hydrogen peroxide.
And heroin was invented as a less-addictive substitute for morphine which was invented as less addicting than opium, while cigarettes were sold as health-inducing items to aid respiration, and cocaine was the active ingredient in Coca-Cola and snuff. So you might want to rethink leaning so heavily on medical science and knowledge from back when tetanus was a death sentence, TB was called consumption, and strokes were called apoplexy. It's not 1914 any more, and never will be again.

I share your disdain for single-payer health care schemes, but no drug addict in your lifetime's history has ever suffered the brunt of the problems for his or her self-inflicted suffering. Unless they shot themselves in the head early on, with enough cash in their coat pocket to cover the funeral expenses. So that would be never as well.

If you want to talk instead about letting 911 responders indelibly stamp "drug addict" on all such they find at home minding their own business (that would be none, ever), refusing further treatment, and leaving them at that scene, I'm fine with that.
The other penalties for when their actions impact the rest of society still apply.
And five minutes after they're homeless (which is about a month after they're addicted), they're no longer in private, and we're back to chain gangs and worse.

The social media scoring scheme is just that: a scheme.
I could give two shits for the whole thing, and its likelihood of ever coming to pass is even lower than the imaginary "libertarian future".

So you've racked up the Grand Slam of Fail in one post.

Well done.

tweell said...

An issue with drug legalization never addressed (other than dismissal as too rare to worry about) is children. Pedophiles like to give drugs to their victims, an addicted child will do what they want. The reason this doesn't happen more often is that pedophiles are rightly afraid of interacting with 'normal' criminals, so they usually make do with alcohol. Legal drugs would be a great help, a devil-send for a pedo.

ASM826 said...

Aesop,

As you point out, And considering that a fine in court of $1000 in this state is a felony-level crime, these two pieces of human feces will see not so much as a ticket, let alone prosecution, because they aren't worth the trouble.

This means California already has de facto decriminalization of drugs because a law that isn't enforced isn't a law at all.

I try to look realistically at things and see them as they are. My views on the government's ability to accomplish anything is pretty cynical, but if the fact is they aren't even trying, then it's time to try something else.

In your example of the resources wasted to revive the two addicts, who is making that decision? Is that a valid use of health care resources? What is your suggestion to fix the problem? Should we let them die? Imprison them? If there was some magic way to eliminate their access to any drugs they could abuse (including alcohol) would they be productive, contributing, members of society?

I would suggest that they would not. They are already broken and will be a drain on the system in one way or another for the rest of their lives. Accepting that, what responsibility do we have to them?

Well meaning people, looking at abuses and problems, emptied out and closed mental hospitals a generation ago. The outcome of this is the homeless, mentally ill, addicted, population in our streets. An awful result of good intentions. Again, whatever they thought would happen didn't.

Outcomes matter. If anyone really cared about the two people you highlight, after they had been revived it would not have been possible for them to return to the streets. Instead, all those resources were spent and might have to spent again today on the same people. That meets the old definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

Anyway, thanks for making me consider my position and think hard about what I would do if it was my decision to make.

Pat H. said...

The only thing accomplished by prohibiting anything is a huge, armed bureaucracy and wealthy prohibited item gangs. There is NO other accomplishment, ever.

Badger said...

Aesop, I do see where you're coming from & the up-close/personal view you have on the consequences of drugged/boozed/stupid behavior, and the consequences that should accrue from that. However, legislative "intent" of humans does not make a law they pass malum in se.

Aesop said...


@Pat:
So you're in the anarchy camp as well.(You should see the discussion that started at Borepatch's post.)
Society has no right to pass any laws whatsoever, because it never works.
Noted.
Murder and robbery are currently prohibited.
Discuss your position, in light of 6000 years of recorded history.

@Badger:
Illicit and abused drugs are in fact malum in se, which is why the legislature passed the laws. The overwhelming majority of the drugs in question are Sched. I drugs, i.e. the ones for which there is no medical utility whatsoever, which is why they're in Schedule I.
Legislatures may be jackassically stupid (mine is), but they do not operate in a legal vacuum.

T-Rav said...

In Germany, where I spent most of a year not long ago, a few cities have resorted to "drug hotels," in which the addict population (fairly large in some cases) get to go to a particular address and shoot up in a private room. The front desk won't provide you with the substances, but they will give you the needles and other paraphernalia, should you require it.

Our tour guide proudly announced that since instituting this, Frankfurt had cut down on its levels of drug addiction by a whopping 10%. Apparently to the European mind, this constitutes "progress."

And unlike our blog host, no mention was made of secondary consequences for the hotel staff or anyone else as a result of this practice.

And yes, the drug hotel was directly adjacent to the city's thriving red-light district. Why do you ask?

Aesop said...

@ASM:
Let me understand you correctly:
You're going to use the jurisprudence of Moonbeam Brown and the CA Dem-supermajority legislature as your benchmark for what rational humanity should do...???
Srsly???
I leave it to you to spot the flaw there.

If government "isn't even trying" it's time to try a different government, not to scrap common sense.

As to your other points:
In your example of the resources wasted to revive the two addicts, who is making that decision?
That would be the Dem-controlled 99th Congress, who passed EMTALA, but not funding for it.

Is that a valid use of health care resources?
No. Throwing the offenders in a pit, and dealing with any who crawled out alive would be the best way to handle that problem. Or simply clubbing them to death outright, at the scene. But people are squeamish.

What is your suggestion to fix the problem?
Withholding all emergency care and treatment for deliberate drug abuse.
Perhaps even to include holding a pillow over their faces until they stop kicking.
If Grandma accidentally takes too many Norco, once, no problem; bring her in.
But if you shoot up heroin, DNR, leave you where you lie, and drive the ambulance away. Problem solved on the first OD. Zero fucks given. Even the auto club automatically cancels your coverage forever after three tows in a year. If getting high is a better choice for you than life, I'm willing to let you go, in order to spend time, effort, and limited resources on the people we can save who want to live, not die.


Should we let them die?
Freedom, baby. Your life, your problem. Some problems are shorter than others.

Imprison them?
Only for other crimes while under the influence. But the above post suggestions are a sop to the softies who won't let people kill themselves rapidly, while refusing to deal with the actual problem.
(cont.)

Aesop said...

(cont.)
If there was some magic way to eliminate their access to any drugs they could abuse (including alcohol) would they be productive, contributing, members of society?
We have the former: it's not magical, and it's called solitary confinement in prison. It precludes the latter half of your question. That's seeing things as they are. Some people simply won't not jump off the cliff. Take the guardrails down, and cordon off the impact area below to protect passersby. Problem solved.

I would suggest that they would not. They are already broken and will be a drain on the system in one way or another for the rest of their lives. Accepting that, what responsibility do we have to them?
D'accord, mon ami. We have a responsibility to the rest of society to limit their impact on everyone else. Including seeing to it that their lives are as short as possible. As sharks are actually endangered, I suggest once the addicts succeed therefore dumping the bodies at sea, and dividing their assets amongst their next of kin, as per the inheritance laws already on the books.

Well meaning people, looking at abuses and problems, emptied out and closed mental hospitals a generation ago. The outcome of this is the homeless, mentally ill, addicted, population in our streets. An awful result of good intentions. Again, whatever they thought would happen didn't.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. So maybe stop ever using intentions of the legislature and the do-gooder vacuous jackholes as the benchmark for how to order society, or as anything but a negative example, rather than a data point for enforcing new futility.

Outcomes matter. If anyone really cared about the two people you highlight, after they had been revived it would not have been possible for them to return to the streets. Instead, all those resources were spent and might have to spent again today on the same people. That meets the old definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.
1) They don't care. They just want to spend my efforts and your money to feel good about themselves, and pretend to occupy the moral high ground, while accomplishing more harm and no good thing. That's SJWism in a nutshell.
2) That's not "the old" definition of insanity, it's Einstein's. He may be a world-class theoretical physicist, but what he knew about mental health could be written inside a thimble with a fat Sharpie. Insanity is the definition of insanity. People who actually know mental health would describe what's being done as sociopathy. The treatment for which is locking the offender up in a prison for the criminally insane, which we used to do until the SJWs applied their efforts to mental health in this country. Mainly to avoid getting put in said facilities themselves.


Anyway, thanks for making me consider my position and think hard about what I would do if it was my decision to make.
You're welcome. And if you vote, it is. The future belongs to the people who show up.

Anonymous said...

I live in an area of the state where people tend to grow their own marijuana. The crime rate here is surprisingly low considering, and there are no cartels here. In fact the entire county is about as boring as it gets, to be honest.

The people around me with 2-3 plants in their yards and growing for personal consumption don't bother me. I have 2 elderly neighbors growing 3 high CBD content plants to help with their chemo nausea, as an example. To me it's like the difference between a raging alcoholic and someone who has a glass of wine at dinner (which is beneficial medically as far as I'm aware, unless that study was contradicted).

So sentencing laws should be for those huge bricks of marijuana, the delivery of those huge brick/bundle things (I have no idea what they're called), and the sales of that stuff. The sick person growing a couple of plants? Leave them alone - they're dealing with enough. That's why I supported medical marijuana, but not the full legalization. My hope is that in the future pharmaceutical companies can pull out the compounds better and in measured doses for patients who use marijuana for pain, nausea, or as an antispasmodic (Sativex is an example of that). That way it can be administered better, more beneficially, and legally to people who use it for various ailments, just as you would use morphine in an ER situation.

As for legalizing murder, Brown just did that. This was passed into law, so we can look forward to many more murders in this fine state soon. Law becomes effective today:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/article218396140.html

elysianfield said...

Aesop,
Drug offenses are usually a felony, with some exceptions. First offense, treatment. Second offense, removal of US citizenship and deportation to any country that would accept a small honorarium (a percentage of treatment cost) offered as an incentive to any cash-strapped country that would accept them (Africa and the Middle-East come to mind).

Done, and done.

Anonymous said...

You are fingering the wrong culprit, Aesop. The malefactor in both cases is one government or another. And in pretty much every other similar case I can think of.

Case 1. What are all these people doing saving people with a deathwish? Those people are acting in that way because the government tells them they have to, and someone else has to foot the bill. Simple solution -- just call the med school and let them know where they can pick up a couple cadavers in an hour or two. Win all the way around.

Case 2. What is the property owner doing letting those yutzes mess with the services he promised to provide his tenants? Let the tenants sue a few times until the owner gets the point. It's the government stepping in saying that the owner can't say "Get off my lawn/parking lot" and back it up with force if necessary that's the problem.


I'm not saying that government is the source of all our problems, but with a couple possible exceptions, I'm hard pressed to see how it's a solution to them, either.

Peter B said...

Aesop, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think you're not cynical enough about the Peoples' Republic of California's nomenklatura. The law permitting recreational cannabis use was very carefully crafted with highly paid, highly expert input. I think from Willie Brown himself, but if not, some of his ilk.

The cartel execs who employ the Escobars of the world are smart enough not to leave money from the "legal" market on the table and definitely have the money to pay consultants and lawyers like Brown and make appropriate campaign contributions to state and local officials. Local pols in Oakland, for example, have long been reputed to have close ties to the local gangs, and the cartels divided up the US into territories a long time ago.

Why in hell should the cartels have to deal with the small growers when they can get the State of California to do the dirty work for them? Case in point: the "loophole" that permitted corporate growers to snap up and bundle the "small farmer" exemptions. Likewise, I think the lower than predicted (predicted by people who think that the words "Arthur Laffer" denote heresy, anyway) is a win for the same interests, namely the large cannabis corporations and the cartels, but I wouldn't be surprised to find I'm repeating myself. The rest of the regulatory structure is doing the same thing: Putting the more "ethical" (as in conscientiously non-polluting and so on) small growers out of business. Illegal, including cartel, grows are notorious polluters of the land and water, – and it's hard not to believe that the plato o plomo unrefusable offer hasn't been made to officials up and down the PRC.

I've got acquaintances with Big Pharma experience, and others with ties to the cannabis industry. Both tell me that the Schedule I status for cannabis is going to go away once there are patented strains and patented cannabinoid drugs.

And the Dem-controlled 99th Congress, who passed EMTALA, but not funding for it? They wanted to break what's left of medicine to create a public demand for single payer; that was the intention of Obamacare as well. Those unfunded Federal mandates are a feature, not a bug.

Anonymous said...

To which church do you refer?

The Church of Aesop. Dictating life choices to those who haven't harmed you is religion.

When you repeal the entire current edifice of socialism to the size and amount of government that existed in 1914, drop us a line.

Why do you believe other peoples' misbehavior in the voting booth is my problem? That's just collective guilt. You're justifying one communism with another communism, it's circular. Size of government moves in a sawtooth fashion, repeal is not something that system does. Repeal is a lie to cloak the actual behavior of the system.

If things weren't that bad then, they wouldn't have passed that law /then/ either.

The people in the past were not political saints and therefore you can't analyze their lawmaking as if they were. They passed that law to grow government just as they pass those laws today.

the imaginary "libertarian future"

Of course the future is going to be libertarian. Technology growth advantages defense by small groups more than offense by large groups. In 2002 the US Navy did a half billion dollar wargame called Millennium Challenge, and concluded the Iranian coastal fishing fleet armed with Russian Silkworm missles could defeat a carrier group. Seventeen years later I don't know who the US surface navy can still beat. Two guys on a Hobie, I suppose, unless they put one of those missing nukes into a torpedo. Remember, no small group can design and build a nuke, because computer cycles needed to simulate a design's behavior are so expensive, and those high-performance computers are only available to a small priesthood in a few government locations. Has some fool Eagle Scout built one yet using parts from ebay?

Anonymous said...

Publicly known fissile material refinement projects look expensive and hard to replicate because they have a big government budget to consume looking important. Let's speculate the cost of refinement has dropped roughly in proportion to the ratio of the Mercury+Apollo projects vs. SpaceX with 600 employees.

In response I expect to hear you call for gun control.

Sentenza said...

I can't take anyone who claims that legalizing drugs will eliminate the black market in drugs seriously. It's a complete line of crap. Take for example a dairy product referred to as "cheese."

There exists, in Canada, where cheese is legal, but, heavily regulated, a black market in cheese. Yes. Cheese. If people will steal, smuggle, and sell cheese, don't you think they'll steal, sell, and smuggle drugs?

In the US, there's a black market in cigarettes. People buy them in low tax jurisdictions and sell them in high tax jurisdictions. Eric Garner died because the police tried to arrest him for loosies.

Illegal dealers in things already have a distribution network set up that functions perfectly well. Legalizing drugs removes some of the risks for them and they don't have nearly the overhead of a Californian hippy granola cruncher boutique head shop that has to pay minimum wage, provide medical insurance, get the licenses, and then entice hipsters to work at his shop.

If we do end up legalizing drugs, at some point, we're going to have to say, "FOAD. You did this to yourself. You had the chance for a DT program, we're done saving your life. Go die because it's not worth our collective effort to save you from the consequences of your choices any more."

If we repealed EMTALA, I bet the druggies would sort themselves out and society would be better off.

Aesop said...

To which church do you refer?
The Church of Aesop. Dictating life choices to those who haven't harmed you is religion.
Logic and basic nomenclature fail. And you're delusional. Nice try though. Sorry about the insanity, but I hope you're getting some treatment. Strike One. Dictating life choices to those who haven't harmed you is called law-making. It dates back to Hammurabi. You could look it up. Your alternative is anarchy, which has never worked in recorded human history.

When you repeal the entire current edifice of socialism to the size and amount of government that existed in 1914, drop us a line.
Why do you believe other peoples' misbehavior in the voting booth is my problem? That's just collective guilt. You're justifying one communism with another communism, it's circular. Size of government moves in a sawtooth fashion, repeal is not something that system does. Repeal is a lie to cloak the actual behavior of the system.
Codswallop, with bullshit frosting. Ignoring reality to propose your utopian schemes, with no concern for their consequences, is just another brand of sociopathy than the SJW nonsense that gave us the current disasterpiece theater. Camouflage it with all the tap-dancing you want to try may entertain you, but it's still insanity, dressed in frilly nonsense. Strike Two.

If things weren't that bad then, they wouldn't have passed that law /then/ either.
The people in the past were not political saints and therefore you can't analyze their lawmaking as if they were. They passed that law to grow government just as they pass those laws today.
Assumes facts not in evidence, shoehorns in pre-conditions with no bearing, and presumes to discern motives based entirely on your own prognostication rather than any facts or data in support of the proposition. Occam's Razor dictates that they passed a law in response to an obvious problem. The current situation demonstrates that if anything, they were too kind by more than half, and should have adopted more draconian policies from the outset. QED. Strike Three.

the imaginary "libertarian future"
Of course the future is going to be libertarian.
There is nothing whatsoever "of course" about the future. You can't tell me who's going to win the Kentucky Derby five months out, but you want anyone to believe you can predict the form government worldwide "of course" will take?
Truly, The Voices talk to you. Untwist your tin foil, and bring it in for a landing. Strike Four.


Technology growth advantages defense by (blah blahbity blah blah)
...with 600 employees.
Much schizoid rambling and hand-waving in response to your imaginary dog whistles. No point. And no points awarded. That's not evidence of a certain libertarian future. You're just killing electrons in support of nothing rationally discernible, let alone topical. Strike Five.

In response I expect to hear you call for gun control.
Why? Has Hell frozen over? I repeat, you're simply delusional. And you can manifestly neither find nor make a coherent point, let alone one on topic. Strike Six.

Trying to baffle people with bullshit only works if they can't see you doing it.
Try working your way up. Start with street magic, then try it on stage.
You're a naked guy trying to do card tricks on a mirrored glass table top in a white room.
With no skillz, and ten thumbs.

Believe me when I tell you it's not remotely working for you.

Bob57 said...

I was in Amsterdam in 1982 on business. It was a beautiful city with gorgeous architecture. At that point, citizens could buy pot in certain bars. I returned in 1990 after drugs were legalized and the city was a mess. The fine old buildings of only 8 years before were covered with graffiti and the formerly beautiful city parks were filled with addicts lying like cordwood, having taken advantage of the 'clean needle' program which the 'enlightened' Dutch government had instituted in an effort to keep a lid on the HIV problem, a fellow traveler with IV drug use. You'll never convince me that legalization is a way to minimize the societal cost of addictions.
Then, in retirement, I became an EMT and now I get to see it up close and personal, with standard precautions, of course.

AB.Prosper said...

The USA supposedly the land of the free and home of the brave has incarcerated more people per capita than any other nation in history and is still awash on drugs. This smells like failure to me.

And as for victory, defined here as "drug uses ceases being a significant social problem" there is no policy path that leads in that direction that we will take , we'd have have one that work which we don't, that could be passed into law and enforced all the while meeting court muster. Not damned likely

A real fix and that might not even work would require marriage reform, job reform and social reform to reduce demand over time since it seems for many people modernity is purposeless misery

And this might fail too. After all the US has a drug epidemic, at the time alcoholic we amended our Constitution to try and deal with it. Which failed hard enough for a repeal And yes chronic alcohol abuse isn't quiet as bad a say meth its still a nation full of addicts , have been for over a hundred years

You need essentially hermetically sealed borders to keep China, Afghanistan and Latin America from flooding the US with drugs. oh yeah and the State will have to control the distribution and probably the administration of legal pain killers which are a huge part of the problem

Free trade cucks aren't going to go for that.

And no, enforcing the death penalty for dealers won't work either. We won't carry it out in a timely and widespread enough manner and even if we somehow did did immigration has left a lot of potential cartel soldiers here who can and would retaliate. They have already done a lot of bad stuff, cut off the fingers of a Phoenix Arizona official among other things and they can do a lot worse whenever they wish

I can promise after cops kids stop coming home, cops wills stop going out

Fundamentally a nation unable or unwilling to control its borders or ensure that it has a healthy future won't be able to do anything about drug abuse and shouldn't bother trying

Better to simply get rid of more State since we can't and won't use power properly

Anonymous said...

Dictating life choices to those who haven't harmed you is called law-making. It dates back to Hammurabi.

It's called slavery, and believing something is good because just it's old is a fallacy.

Your alternative is anarchy, which has never worked in recorded human history.

People used to argue that man will never walk on the moon, because he never has. That is not proof the goal is impossible to reach. Today with drones and cryptocurrency, it's like Project Mercury is meeting its goals, but you still don't believe moonwalking is any more likely.

Bob57 wrote: You'll never convince me that legalization is a way to minimize the societal cost of addictions.

It's only a societal cost because the legislature bills the taxpayer for it. This policy is a choice.

Anonymous said...

Human nature says that anarchy is not achievable right now. We'd literally need to change how our brain works. Humans work in a hierarchical structure wherever and whenever they're found - the default position for most of humanity has been feudalism, in fact. Now we vote for the leaders. Small groups, large groups, no matter what, you're going to get a leader. That leader can be voted on, or naturally selected, but there is always a leader and again, unless and until we physically alter our brain structure, that will be the case.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430590/

Glen Filthie said...

Clap clap clap. Bravo, Aesop. It’s too bad you can’t apply the same level of reason and logic to drones and crapcopters. HAR HAR HAR!

You are exactly right on this. When I was a kid growing up in the Canukistani equivalent to Mayberry, drugs hit us like a ton of bricks out of nowhere. All the cool kids were doing them by grade 7. I never got into them myself. My brother did though, as did all his buddies. More than a few of them started regularly entertaining the police and paramedics like you. By high school the worst ones were cashing out. A few OD’s, couple were killed in drug turf wars. LOL... it wasn’t Mayberry any more. I just shrugged and said ‘served ‘em right. Drugs like that are for degenerates and morons...’. My liberal family gasped in outrage and shock and told me I was a rednecked heartless chit head. Can you imagine my chagrin? ;)

Let me tell ya where this goes, boys. Us Canukistanies are a few swirls further down the crapper on this one than you Yanks are.

Pretty soon some progressive liberal f-knuckle is going to notice how much time Aesop and the medical crowd waste on tragic overdose problems. Not only will you need to supply free junk to these poor citizens - they will need to be supervised while they shoot up, and safe injection sites will be needed with fully qualified doctors on site to respond to any emergencies. It’s all about harm reduction dontchya know.

It will be a resounding success too. The facility workers will pose for the photo ops, the mass media will sing their praises, and the cops will be ignored or instructed not to comment publicly on the issue. Residents in the area will be largely ignored when they bitch about discarded needles at the playgrounds, and the walking corpses that will start hanging out there and in other public places.

Talking about the issue in terms of rights and freedoms got us here. We used to listen to our cops and ERT guys. Now we listen to lawyers and movie stars.

Just sayin.

Aesop said...

@Anonymous 2:31
Dictating life choices to those who haven't harmed you is called law-making. It dates back to Hammurabi.
It's called slavery, and believing something is good because just it's old is a fallacy.
It's also a fallacy to build straw man. No one said it's good because it's old. Logic fail. Again. Slavery? Srsly?? Describe to the class who the slave is, and what prevents them from leaving the plantation. Oh, wait, nothing, and no one. So yet again, valueless answers. Common Core Millenial? Just a guess.

Your alternative is anarchy, which has never worked in recorded human history.
People used to argue that man will never walk on the moon, because he never has. That is not proof the goal is impossible to reach. Today with drones and cryptocurrency, it's like Project Mercury is meeting its goals, but you still don't believe moonwalking is any more likely.
Somewhere in your head, that made sense. No one argued we never would because we never had. They might have argued we never would because it was technologically extremely difficult. Out of 10B people in human history, only twelve guys have ever done it. But relying, in the face of millennia of failure, on what has failed to work over and over to someday magically function is simply a denial of reality, and blistering ignorance of human nature, combined with OCD, on a societal scale. It's still a psychosis.

Bob57 wrote: You'll never convince me that legalization is a way to minimize the societal cost of addictions.
It's only a societal cost because the legislature bills the taxpayer for it. This policy is a choice.
As is incarceration on chain gangs, followed by LWOP or execution. And seriously, who else would the legislature bill, and what would you call that?? You string words together to no purpose. If you're seeking mental health therapy, you've come to the wrong blog. All you've got is gainsaying, and you can't argue a single point without tripping over reality or logic and falling headlong.
This is not your forte.
Maybe poker's not your game either, Ike. let's try a spelling bee.

Aesop said...

@AB
The USA supposedly the land of the free and home of the brave has incarcerated more people per capita than any other nation in history and is still awash on drugs. This smells like failure to me.
Funny, that smells like non-sequitir to me. The people incarcerated aren't all in prison for drugs. No points.

And as for victory, defined here as "drug uses ceases being a significant social problem" there is no policy path that leads in that direction that we will take , we'd have one that work which we don't, that could be passed into law and enforced all the while meeting court muster. Not damned likely
1) Drug use will always be a significant social problem, as are murder, rape, robbery, etc.
2) The point isn't that it will go away, just that those who chose it will
3) And what magical policy would that be?


A real fix and that might not even work would require marriage reform, job reform and social reform to reduce demand over time since it seems for many people modernity is purposeless misery
You might solve a fraction of the problem, but at what costs?
And what about the chunk you do nothing to solve?
You'll still have the original problem, untouched, for a huge percentage of people.


And this might fail too. After all the US has a drug epidemic, at the time alcoholic we amended our Constitution to try and deal with it. Which failed hard enough for a repeal And yes chronic alcohol abuse isn't quiet as bad a say meth its still a nation full of addicts , have been for over a hundred years
A nation of alcoholics perhaps, but drug addiction wasn't much of a thing until the 1960s. Dig a little, and see what changed.

You need essentially hermetically sealed borders to keep China, Afghanistan and Latin America from flooding the US with drugs. oh yeah and the State will have to control the distribution and probably the administration of legal pain killers which are a huge part of the problem
1) No, you won't.
2) No, they won't need to do that.
3) No, they aren't.


Free trade cucks aren't going to go for that.
Free trade has as much to do with drugs here by the ton as fish have to do with bicycles.
Sorting out the importation problem is simply a problem if you're too lax about it.
We are.
Death penalty for the captain, any culpable crew, the exporters and importers, and owner(s), plus seizure of the vessel involved, and this becomes a non-issue.
Dope on your ship/plane is your dope. Period.

And we get the largest merchant fleet in the world in the meantime, for free, while creating a boom market for maritime job openings. Win-win.

And for a bonus, we slap punitive tariffs and import sanctions on every country originating a shipment.
You play ball with us, or you get the bat up your @$$.

In the long run, the owners and export countries will become harsher anti-drug ferrets than the .gov, because heads on the chopping block, and crippled economies.

(cont.)

Aesop said...

(cont.)
And no, enforcing the death penalty for dealers won't work either. We won't carry it out in a timely and widespread enough manner and even if we somehow did immigration has left a lot of potential cartel soldiers here who can and would retaliate. They have already done a lot of bad stuff, cut off the fingers of a Phoenix Arizona official among other things and they can do a lot worse whenever they wish
I can promise after cops kids stop coming home, cops wills stop going out


And Islam cuts off heads. Ask around about how the Taliban and ISIS are doing, and tell me who's going to go head-to-head with us. When houses full of cartel members just explode, they'll stop sending their crap here.
And if their governments want to pick sides, they can. They should inquire about the last nation to best us on the field of battle and live to tell the tale. It's one of the world's thinnest books.


Fundamentally a nation unable or unwilling to control its borders or ensure that it has a healthy future won't be able to do anything about drug abuse and shouldn't bother trying

Better to simply get rid of more State since we can't and won't use power properly

Cop out, and fantasizing. If you could get rid of more State, you would, but you can't. And the cartels will be happy to fill that vacuum. Look south of Texas, and let me know how that's working out there.

Stop importing Mexicans here, stop importing Mexico here, and stop importing Mexico's long-standing problems here, and you'll solve all those problems at once.
Fail to do so, and you'll be living in Oaxaca and Jalisco until the end of your days, all the way to Maine and Alaska.

And long before that happens, it will be open season, which will be short-term utterly disastrous. But in the long run, I like our odds.

But I'd still rather see us do this the easy way.

Pat H. said...

@Aesop,

There is a huge difference between mala in se laws and mala prohibitum laws. The latter are not necessary for a well run civilization.

Juxtaposing the former with the latter to rationalize a position isn't persuasive.

Anonymous said...

Consider the difference in wealth implied by the size differences of the estates of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vs. the palaces of the King of England. That wealth enables imperial military strength. But as it turned out, the military advantages of an ocean-width moat, rifled barrels, and guerrilla tactics were sufficient to defend against England's organized crime. Tax collection will end when it costs more to collect than is collected.

If you could get rid of more State, you would, but you can't.

It's nice to talk engineering. Would you agree that if the Branch Davidians had nukes, there would have been no Waco massacre? If you agree to that, then what smaller military advantages would still have been sufficient to produce a defensive win, a stalemate of mutually assured destruction?

Imagine your rural setting full of electronic-y robot-y things. An enchanted forest from those dark Grimm fairy tales. A no-man's land with more obstacles and variety of response than a minefield. Walk into the woods, the pine needles soak up your radio, it's dark, you're out of sight, and then the trees rip you apart limb from limb. The revenuers went up the mountain and were never heard from again.

No change in genetically-delivered human brain instincts needed. Racism and sexism can be sufficiently overcome by sufficiently many with learning. Libertarians simply need to stop accepting it when their children try to "regulate" them.

Aesop said...

@Pat
There is a huge difference between mala in se laws and mala prohibitum laws.
The latter are not necessary for a well run civilization.
Both true points.

Juxtaposing the former with the latter to rationalize a position isn't persuasive. No juxtaposition is necessary, nor is anything being rationalized. I'm stating explicitly that laws prohibiting drug abuse are because illicit drugs are evil in and of themselves, and absolutely in the state's interest to ban, because the crime is never victimless for long, if ever. I only have the evidence of my lying eyes and 50 years of the experiment in society on my side of the ledger in support of the proposition.
And in fact, the simple act of smuggling them here has already violated that victimless crime rule in multiple parts, and with dreadful consequences, demonstrating the contention to be utter b.s.
The ones claiming the entire phenomena is victimless are the ones doing the rationalizing, and a blind man can see through that argument.
It's bad enough that civilization has grandfathered in alcohol as an unenforceable indulgence to be tolerated, knowing the downside of it, mainly because of millennia of familiarity by all concerned, and the potential for use without abuse.
Drug compounds of abuse, overwhelmingly those under Schedule I, have no such pedigree nor potential, and to the extent they are tolerated at all, you do not have a well-run civilization either, and both those bringing them in and those abusing them are undermining society with both hands.

A wife who poisons her husband is accounted among the foulest humans imaginable; how then the person who poisons 10% of society? Only the moral relativism of Stalin can call the latter crime "merely a statistic", rather than serial felonies worthy of the harshest penalties possible.

AB.Prosper said...

To you point, re: non sequitur

Actually much of the violence in the US is at least indirectly drug related and much as an end to prohibition reduced gangland homicides, an end to drug turf wars should reduce gangland homicides. If it doesn't we can always return to the old policy or make a new one. We should try something new instead of doubling down on things that aren't working

Now if drug use is always going to be a significant problem, how exactly do you "win" your war on drugs?

As far as homicide and robbery, these are crimes with victims for one and second less people participate in these acts than use, purchase, enjoy and probably sell drugs. You an also measure results or falsify them . Drug use? Not so much

Truth is violent crime is an ethnic and class problem (mostly poor and some working black and brown) anyway whereas every race and social class used drugs

And note the last time the US was really able to control drugs the US economy was 90%+ domestic and the population 90% or so European White and what trade we had was export driven. By modern standards it practically was hermetically sealed. As we got more imports, we got more drugs with them and by the 80's cocaine was common . This wasn't quite as bad as now but we had a healthier more homogeneous culture and less demand but those days are long gone, Back than California was 75% White and a Red state as you remember.

Even an immigration ban won't fix that.

And free trade which is evil on its face has everything to do with drugs since the free flow of goods requires a less onerous inspection regime. You can have trade and drugs but you can't force demand down with police when its so high and you have to inspect everything when the incentives to smuggle are so good

Aside from the fact you won't get the capital punishment policy you want , ISIS isn't here in numbers and we have an ocean to protect us, Basically we can blow them up whenever and they can't retaliate all that much . The drug cartels OTOH are here and are doing fine. You destroy one, another arises. Our rule of law is pretty weak being this is an anarcho tyranny in many places anyway and many states and municipal governments won't cooperate with your enforcement efforts and we won't be able to make them


As for stop importing Mexicans, that's a policy we both agree on though its a long shot . And don't tell me the contact my Congressman I have and he's done his part. My Senators however are the same as yours.

As for State I'm well aware that we aren't going to be rid of it even if many agencies are little more than self licking ice cream cones. I'm also not a minarchist/ultra federalist like the WRSA folks . It won't shrink till the US becomes to insolvent to pay for it and that is a ways off.

However just letting States handle drugs might be better especially weed since a lot of people want it legal. We probably can keep up the futile drug war on some of the others for a while yet.,

Aesop said...

Consider the difference in wealth implied by the size differences of the estates of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson vs. the palaces of the King of England. That wealth enables imperial military strength. But as it turned out, the military advantages of an ocean-width moat, rifled barrels, and guerrilla tactics were sufficient to defend against England's organized crime.
No they weren't. It took a French fleet and army, boatloads of arms, and enough financial support to bankrupt the kingdom of France to do that, to the decline of the French monarchy within a generation. History fail. Stop inhaling the mythology.

Tax collection will end when it costs more to collect than is collected.
Show your work. That has happened...when, exactly?
This C.S. Lewis quote is germane:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Pay close attention to the "without end" portion.


If you could get rid of more State, you would, but you can't.

It's nice to talk engineering. Would you agree that if the Branch Davidians had nukes, there would have been no Waco massacre?
No. The massacre would simply have been actually Waco, rather than a bizarre and reclusive cult on its periphery. And they would have been exterminated by massive nuclear first strike, lacking any retaliatory capability whatsoever, and with the full and heartfelt approval of anyone within the radius of the threat their possession of nukes made a reality. Next hypothetical.
If you agree to that, then what smaller military advantages would still have been sufficient to produce a defensive win, a stalemate of mutually assured destruction?
Asked and answered. Your attempt is scored as a failed bunt.

Imagine your rural setting full of electronic-y robot-y things. An enchanted forest from those dark Grimm fairy tales. A no-man's land with more obstacles and variety of response than a minefield. Walk into the woods, the pine needles soak up your radio, it's dark, you're out of sight, and then the trees rip you apart limb from limb. The revenuers went up the mountain and were never heard from again.
So the revenuers simply fly over, napalm the forest, then sit at the bottom of the hill and listen to the screams and explosions of the former occupants, and they live happily ever after. And all the outres are pour encouragere'd. QED.
Ever see a housecat that thinks it's a lion hold off an actual pride of the genuine article? No, you haven't, because it's unpossible.


No change in genetically-delivered human brain instincts needed. Racism and sexism can be sufficiently overcome by sufficiently many with learning.
Poppycock. Racism and sexism are fed far more by education and acquaintance than hindered by it. It's familiarity that breeds contempt, not ignorance. Myths of "noble savages" and "fairer sexes" are fed from positions of isolation and nostalgic ignorance, not from hard-earned close-up experience. This is why the Diversity Religion requires you to first ignore your lying eyes, listen and adhere to the dogma, and never question the realities of close association.
As Britistan and Eurostan are finding out to their chagrin. Claiming otherwise is peddling pure twaddle.


Libertarians simply need to stop accepting it when their children try to "regulate" them.
Libertarians - both of them - will only belatedly realize that their children pick their nursing homes. Or, not.

As Foghorn Leghorn frequently noted, "You're choppin', boy, but no chips are flyin'."

Aesop said...

Actually much of the violence in the US is at least indirectly drug related and much as an end to prohibition reduced gangland homicides, an end to drug turf wars should reduce gangland homicides.
You'll get cartels to surrender...how, exactly?
If it doesn't we can always return to the old policy or make a new one. We should try something new instead of doubling down on things that aren't working
Exactly my point. Half-assed enforcement, and pretend-war isn't working at all.

Now if drug use is always going to be a significant problem, how exactly do you "win" your war on drugs?
I don't want a war on drugs. I'm fine with exterminating the illicit users. For the squeamish, after a strike or two in attempting to dissuade them, but ultimately, permanent incarceration/extermination will probably be the only sufficient and efficient hindrance. As with rabid dogs, and for the same reason.

As far as homicide and robbery, these are crimes with victims for one and second less people participate in these acts than use, purchase, enjoy and probably sell drugs. You an also measure results or falsify them . Drug use? Not so much
No points for hand-waving and gainsaying. Drugs rack up a bigger body count than serial killers, year in and year out, before we even tally the casualties the police are responsible for. So there ARE victims, and there ARE accounts kept. In basketball, they call that a "stuff".

Truth is violent crime is an ethnic and class problem (mostly poor and some working black and brown) anyway whereas every race and social class used drugs
Apples and oranges. Every race and social class commits violent crimes in support of drug importation and drug abuse. All you've done is prove drugs are worse than robbery and murder. QED

And note the last time the US was really able to control drugs the US economy was 90%+ domestic and the population 90% or so European White and what trade we had was export driven. By modern standards it practically was hermetically sealed. As we got more imports, we got more drugs with them and by the 80's cocaine was common . This wasn't quite as bad as now but we had a healthier more homogeneous culture and less demand but those days are long gone, Back than California was 75% White and a Red state as you remember.

Even an immigration ban won't fix that.

Actually, that's the only thing that will. Look up drug abuse in Japan, or Saudi Arabia, two more homogenous societies and cultures than which you will not discover on the planet. I'll wait until the penny drops.
(cont.)

Aesop said...

(cont.)
And free trade which is evil on its face has everything to do with drugs since the free flow of goods requires a less onerous inspection regime. You can have trade and drugs but you can't force demand down with police when its so high and you have to inspect everything when the incentives to smuggle are so good
You're confusing "comprehensive" with "onerous". No sale. They are not interchangeable terms. And business should be done in a business-like manner. If you can't bring in a ship cargo that's drug free, that's the importer's problem, not the populations, unless you agree to look the other way. That's not free trade, it's straightforward corruption and abdication of responsibilities. Aided and abetted by those profiting sharing none of the risks. Put their heads on the block, and they'll get smart, or lose those heads. I don't care which.

Aside from the fact you won't get the capital punishment policy you want,
That's an open question.
ISIS isn't here in numbers and we have an ocean to protect us, Basically we can blow them up whenever and they can't retaliate all that much. The drug cartels OTOH are here and are doing fine. You destroy one, another arises.
Read more widely. Ft. Hood and 50 other Aloha Snackbar incidents are harbingers, not outliers.

Our rule of law is pretty weak being this is an anarcho tyranny in many places anyway and many states and municipal governments won't cooperate with your enforcement efforts and we won't be able to make them
Let's try it, and see. Anyone could solve that in about an hour, and the lesson would sting for centuries.


As for stop importing Mexicans, that's a policy we both agree on though its a long shot . And don't tell me the contact my Congressman I have and he's done his part. My Senators however are the same as yours.

As for State I'm well aware that we aren't going to be rid of it even if many agencies are little more than self licking ice cream cones. I'm also not a minarchist/ultra federalist like the WRSA folks . It won't shrink till the US becomes to insolvent to pay for it and that is a ways off.

However just letting States handle drugs might be better especially weed since a lot of people want it legal. We probably can keep up the futile drug war on some of the others for a while yet.,

I don't want the same old song and dance. That's where the failure lies.
Heads on pike poles, OTOH, solves most problems, in short order, and permanently.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Aesop has a small government Norman Rockwell picture in his head as his goal, but that picture is a myth. His obedience is supporting the present big and future bigger government. Gracefully getting smaller is not something government does.

Recent attempts at gun registration and confiscation in Connecticut, California, and New Jersey have produced little obedience. Does this behavior lead you to predict rural trads will get on the regulatory boxcars all the way to a copy of Venezuela? Wait, I know, they're going to vote at it.

So the revenuers simply fly over, napalm the forest

The government morality play is always written so that the government has initiative, and the defenders never have geographically dispersed backup plans. They couldn't have driven a bomb to capitol city in a truck the year before, because then the plot wouldn't work. This is propaganda, not wargaming.

AB.Prosper writes: And free trade which is evil on its face

In 1770 you would be a Tory, and support the British colonial government?

Baldrick said...

Either my brain melted and I'm having trouble with reading comprehension (it's possible, I'm running on 4 hours of sleep), or you just made no sense.

Who couldn't have driven what truck to what capital city? What are you going on about?

As for the British colonial government, I was unaware that we were only trading with the British East India Company under the Townshend Acts still. Free trade is actual free trade with many countries. There's nothing evil about it if it's also fair trade, and I don't think AB would say anything differently about that. I hope. I'm pretty sure he or she was being facetious (again, I hope). It's pretty much how the world has made money for millennia.

AB.Prosper said...

Fair trade is not free trade. I'm fine with fair trade or even rigged trade so long as it is in the national benefit. I'm also OK with as little trade as possible, C.F long periods of US History where the economy was almost entirely domestic.

However what I am opposed to is anything like globalism or rule by merchants

To quote Z Man here

Even putting the cultural arguments aside, global capitalism erodes the civic institutions that hold society together. Instead of companies respecting the laws of host nations and working to support the welfare of the people of that nation, business is encouraged to cruise the world looking for convenient ports. There’s a word for this form of capitalism. It’s called piracy. Global firms flit from port to port, with no interest other than the short term gain to be made at that stop. Globalism is rule by pirates.

AB.Prosper said...

My last replies to our host were likely eaten which is probably for the better as they were long and turgid

My take on the drug war is we don't have the political capital to use brutal methods especially at the Federal level. We can't make states comply with immigration law or real ID right now nor will we enforce marijuana laws while its still federally illegal

However if the current system was changed by I don't know a Provisional Government of National Restoration (term borrowed from internet loudmouth Captain Cod) with a bloodthirsty enough mindset and willing to basically fight another insurgency , maybe.

I don't think the real start to a solution heavy inspection of incoming goods, a border wall, departing illegals much less the politically hard stuff, gradual repatriation , marriage reform , economic reform is possible.

We are baring a revolution or collapse pretty much just going to be more and more like the nations across our Southern Border until the economy up and dies and the ability to control people is a lot lower.

Mass immigration, Open Borders and Free (not Nationalist) Trade along with Cheap labor and Cultural Marxism kills nations and ours is not immune.

Odds are 9-1 game over for the US

Don't get me wrong, I'm working on the 1 in 9 but its long odds.

Last as to what the anon at 4:02 asked, sure I'd probably have been a Tory unless I personally benefited or thought I did from the new system. This is just like most people.

I don't like the current system because it doesn't benefit me and mine not for any other reason and in fact I think the so called Cathedral had up to recently done a decent job

Because however its a toxic religious movement now , they can't stay in power. The Nationalists have to take over as that system is too difficult to reform and has become actively harmful

Beans said...

Just to mess up the historical thought that the end of Prohibition got the Mob(s) out of the alcohol business, well, I'll continue when I get my breath back from laughing...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay. So, well, try to get a liquor license or liquor distribution contract up Northeast or in certain mob-controlled cities west and south without 'donating' to the local wise guys.

So we 'legalize' all the currently illegal poisons. (For that's what drugs mostly are, various poisons, toxins and pollutants...) You think the Cartels will just go away? Look at California or anywhere else where legalization has occurred and see if the Cartels aren't involved. California has no cartel 'farmers' destroying the national and state parks with illegal grows, right?

We're stuck with the Cartels until we deal with them as harshly as we did the Vegas Mob, well, we need to deal harsher with them. JDAMS sound like a good start.

Borepatch said...

Well argued and thought provoking (as usual).

I reply here: https://borepatch.blogspot.com/2019/01/similarities-between-war-on-drugs-and.html

Steve said...

I've gone through the Borepatch posts and comments. I don't think you are giving the arguments the credit due. For example, in this thread you hand pick a lot of offenses you would like to make capital. And then take ASM to task saying, "You have reduced the law to being mere ice cream flavors, and decided you like chocolate, but hate vanilla. And on no more basis that personal preference."

I don't care to fight their battles, though. I'd like you to consider the plethora of offenses that you have converted to "after the first, all the rest are free." At the moment, drug runners know that they will most likely get away with a slap on the wrist so long as they don't add to it with violence (provable) and/or gun offenses. You aren't proposing to make the war on drugs real. You are proposing a new war on cops and their families.

And maybe that's for the best. As soon as no one with anything to lose is willing to tote a gun for the man, no one is willing to execute people who missed an alimony payment for fear that someone will learn when little Susie gets out of school and will take their anger out on her, the rest of us don't have much to worry about regarding gun confiscation...