Thursday, July 11, 2019

Yes, Anyone Can Play

But, like the US Open, there will be a hierarchy fairly rapidly, and eliminations from competition.

Peter, over at Bayou Renaissance Man, refereed his own feelings on the most recent topic, and declared us both right, in his estimation. {And to be fair, I agree with Borepatch unreservedly on one thing: the current half-witted half-baked half-assed Mutually Beneficial Slapfight On (Some) Drugs With Collateral Damage [abbreviated MBSO(S)DWCD] is absolutely a cluster-fuck boondoggle of epic jackassery. Nota bene: That does not, ergo, mean surrender is the correct second choice.}

Then, there were comments there, some of which I'd be interested in discussing.
Or mocking, where appropriate.
And so we begin:

Blogger CDH said...
Don't some Western European nations have 'drug ghettos' for lack of a better term where drugs are basically legal? It isn't much better than a death sentence, but hey, if you are going to go kill yourself slowly while shooting that crap into your veins or nose, may as well get it all in one nice convenient place!
July 11, 2019 at 3:46 PM
Except that the government (meaning you and me) is still paying for it. If you're going to execute a m*****f****r, execute him. Don't pay for his food and drugs until he does the job himself.
If you want to make instant lethal injection a massive heroin OD instead of Valium, succinylcholine, and potassium, I'm OK with that.
Blogger Flyfish said...
The law of supply and demand doesn't care about the legality of the trade goods, currently the status of illegal drugs constitutes a federal price support.

I believe that until you are willing to execute all the consumers of drugs the demand will not go away. I'm not advocating this, just observing that the law of supply and demand doesn't care.
July 11, 2019 at 4:29 PM
Full marks for an excellent grasp of economic reality.
But I'm experimental: let's execute all the producers and suppliers of illegal narcotics, and then see what needs doing after that.
Blogger stencil said...
The WOD is a failure to the nation and its people, but not necessarily to those who benefit from either the trade or the War on it. Follow the money.
Much more should be made of Aesop's call to remove all support for the (self-created) victims of addiction -- not just denial of medical insurance and supprt programs like methadone maintenance, but refusal to provide medical care. Probably EMT's but possibly even physicians may want to draw a line at the point where Do No Harm conflicts with Give Him What He Wants.

July 11, 2019 at 4:30 PM
I'm fine with EMTs and paramedics stamping DNR on junkies where found, and then driving away, leaving them right there. That much should be a Libertarian laissez faire wet dream.

Also, let's play Historical Spot The Flaw:
Methadone was made to get people off of heroin, which was made to get people off of morphine, which was made to get people off of opium.
Bonus: guess how many of the above are opiates?
a) All of them
b) All of them
Blogger Angus McThag said...
When you make recreational drugs legal, make narcan illegal.

Things sort themselves out if you let them.

We're at the point where having the drugs being illegal is worse than letting them be legal.

That doesn't mean that legalizing them is going to make things good, but it will make things better.

Just like when prohibition ended.

Prohibition didn't cure the ills caused by booze and created many more problems. Ending prohibition didn't end all of the problems, but it mitigated much of them.

Things ended up worse than before, and the lesson should have been to not ban things people take to get euphoric.

But we don't like that answer, so we keep trying to force people to be moral.
July 11, 2019 at 4:48 PM
Angus would probably be tickled to know that more than a few paramedics with local agencies have expressed the exact same "Legalize heroin. Ban Narcan." thought, verbatim after delivering the lastest wastes of skin and oxygen to the E.R.

But that only covers opiates. It does nothing about methamphetamine, cocaine, and 37 other drugs. My story at Borepatch's OP was a young lady totally methed out. Banning Narcan would still leave me (and society) dealing with her times 500,000. Unless I can push intubation drugs, and then not intubate, the problem is still here.

The solution is to not bring them to the hospital, ever.
The problem with that is it's a Final Solution, and that phrase has a certain track record regarding audience approval.

Also, legalization isn't going to be better.
Making Corleone Italian-American Importing or Medellin Narco-Cartel Inc. a Fortune 500 company isn't going to stop them whacking the competition, and the profits, now pure as snow, will be untouchable.

We know what that looks like in practice: Mexico.

"Forcing people to be moral" has a name too: laws.
They've worked since Hammurabi.
They've also failed since Hammurabi. Because people are people.
Doing without them has never worked, not even once.
Blogger Sevesteen said...
If you're talking about narco-cartels "not paying taxes" or profiting more, you're missing most of the point of legalization. Cartels will not be able to compete with legal businesses unless the tax rates are absurdly high. This is a huge reason for me to support legalization, I'd much rather a mostly legal corporation profit (with the lower margins that real competition brings) than a full-on criminal.

Leave the penalties for illegal import, illegal sale. Make it legal to use or posses in private, in a willing business but a felony on a playground or similar--use will move. We don't really have a big problem with opioid overdoses in general, we have a small OD problem attached to a big fentanyl OD problem. Instead of using fentanyl as an excuse to ban normal opioids, make it a felony to adulterate with fentanyl. Where junkies can get known dosages of known drugs, OD rates will be lower. Legal for adults, felony to sell to children--when I was in junior high, I knew where to get pot or speed, but alcohol was much more difficult. Junkies may rob...but they won't need nearly as much. Let police focus on crimes against decent people instead of dealing with the aftermath of drug dealer disputes.

I don't take illegal drugs, nor would I if they were legal. But I believe that decent people like me are harmed by indirect effects of drug laws more than we would by their elimination.
July 11, 2019 at 5:05 PM
Lad, this is going to hurt you more than it will me.
I'll say this as tenderly and gently as I can: you're a total idiot.
Cartels will give drugs away to get market share, and drive legal competition out of business.
Then they'll tell the board of directors at Big Pharma Inc. they think it would be a shame if their factory accidentally burned down next week.
Then their CEO would find a horse's severed head in his bed.
Then their employees' heads would keep appearing in duffel bags in front of the main gate every Monday, without their bodies attached.
Then the Mob and the cartels would own Merck, Bayer, Glaxo-Smith, etc., after buying them for $1 apiece.
Big Pharma has their hooks into your congress now; how d'ya figure the country will do with President Corleone then?
Sweet Suffering Shiva, this was TV and movie plotlines in the 1970s. FFS, try and keep up.

"Leave the penalties for illegal import, illegal sale".
So you want the current Mutually Beneficial Slapfight On (Some) Drugs With Collateral Damage to stay in place, and you want to legalize everything here, and enforce no laws?
Except you want the government to prosecute people for f**king with junkies' heroin?
Call it the Junkie Protection Act of 2019?

Dude, we should be mandating that dealers put carfentanil into every heroin dose. It wipes out the cities' entire heroin addict populations overnight.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Problem solved. Next question.

And you think that ensuring a clean heroin high for everyone who wants it is going to magically be better for you and the country than things are now??

And "Let police focus on crimes against decent people instead of dealing with the aftermath of drug dealer disputes."

I was doing CPR On Norm Normie, who was capped with one 10-ring AK bullet to the chest, because two drug @$$holes got into a tiff, and with typical drughead marksmanship capped Norm 100 yds away, whilst he was carrying his elderly mother's groceries home, right next to his wife. He was DRT, deader than canned tuna, and that was twenty effing years ago. You think if you make drugs legal tomorrow, the drug culture is suddenly going to become intelligent, thoughtful, law-abiding, tax-paying Rotarians and Elks???

My main ridicule of your position was simply putting what you said out there to see, for the embarrassment factor. But you win the prize: Say hello to my little friend.

Blogger Peter said...
@McThag: I wouldn't make Narcan illegal. It's used to treat good people who accidentally come into contact with fentanyl and other illegal substances - cops, EMS workers, etc. They're going to need it, whether or not we make illicit drugs legal.

One might argue that Narcan should be reserved for the "good guys", but denied to the "bad guys". Trouble is, how can one tell? It's not always obvious whether or not someone affected by fentanyl touched it accidentally or took it on purpose. Any delay in making that call might be fatal.
July 11, 2019 at 5:14 PM
But it isn't that hard to tell them apart. Anyone who enters the premises in uniform, on duty, gets the Narcan. No one else does. After one, maybe two cases of innocent bystander deaths, and they'll be dropping a dime on the drug cookers at the speed of light.
Blogger Jerry said...
Create Drug Treatment Centers where drug users can use their drug of choice. The drugs would be free to the users. The treatment centers provides meals and a place to sleep. If you want to get out you have to be clean for 30 days. If you decide to use drugs until you die it's your choice.

The drugs would come from dealer stocks when they're arrested.

Doing this will reduce crime. Users no longer have to commit various crimes to get money to buy drugs. Dealers will soon have to find more profitable for ventures.

The drug treatment centers will also be a draw for do-gooders intent on saving these poor people from their destructive impulses. They will leave us alone.

On the downside people will die in the treatment centers but I believe the net death toll will be less than what we're doing now.
July 11, 2019 at 5:38 PM
Jerry, what you've called a Drug treatment Center?
A place you can't leave?
We call those prisons.

But you've helpfully added providing narcotics to their daily menu. This will be a big hit with the 50-80% of criminals who use drugs, but for the guy paying for it, not so much. And the guards will quit en masse before they'll cater drugs to their charges, because they don't wanna deal with junkies freaking out there any more than I do in the ER.

And the only way you're going to get dealers stocks when they're arrested is to continue the current MBWO(S)DWCD.

So quit pussyfooting, cut to the chase, shoot the druggies in the head, and turn them into worm food out back. For two cents, I'd throw the do-gooders into the same pile. But that's only after decades of first-hand experience with both populations.

If you're not willing to go there, you're not really helping.
Blogger JWM said...

First, it is wise to separate the marijuana market from the hard drug trade. Like it, or not smoking weed has become part of our culture. Kids are going to sneak a joint just like a beer. Better they don't have to get it through a black market where the hard stuff is sold.

But "legalization" in CA has been disastrous.
Under the old 215 laws pot was available, inexpensive, and the requirement for a "Dr.'s Rec" kept the riff-raff out of the dispensaries.

Under 64, the State taxes on weed are so egregious that everyone is going back to the black market, or gray market. The same ounce of weed that costs ~$180 on the gray market will cost about $500 in a State "Legal Cannabis" shop. To boot, now CA continues to ignore the federal weed laws, yet calls in the National Guard to raid unlicensed pot farms. The State of California has become the new cartel.

July 11, 2019 at 6:50 PM
JWM, your are evidently complete unacquainted with the fact that the current weed is about 200 times more potent than the weak scraggly Mexican sh*t that was around in the 1970s. We see two-three people a night in every ER in CA for being f**ked up on marijuana. It's epidemic, but no one talks about it in public. It includes little kids and grannies that didn't know Junior Pothead's "brownie" or Gummy Bears were 100% potency sh*t, that messes them up for hours, at a cost of thousands of dollars and an ER bed unavailable for anything else. And this is true only since and because of legalization. Color me shocked, Califrutopia doesn't want to hear about this, because "it's just pot".

Your other observations regarding the new idiocy of TPTB in California stand.
Um, fuck them, sideways, with a rusty chainsaw.
Blogger JaimeInTexas said...
Mine view is that I lost. There is no Constitutional authority delegated to the FedGov to prohibit drug use.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You're apparently totally unaware of the Opium Tariff Statutes of 1832, the Pure Food and Drug Act, Import and Export Regulations, the Harrison Act, the Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act (all of these passed before 1922), followed by the Porter Act of 1929, the Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, The Informers Act of 1930, the Marihuana Tax Act, the Vehicle Seizure Act of 1939, the Opium Poppy Control Act, the Drug Legislation of 1946, the Increased Penalties of 1951 and 1956, the Narcotics Manufacturing Act, and the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act.
And that only covers federal laws before 1970.

[It should be noted that the largely laissez faire approach of the 19th century, so enamored by pseudo-historians online as "how it oughta be forever" got the U.S. between 500,000 and 1M drug addicts by the turn of the century, when the US population was only 76M. So between 1/2 and 1% of the country was hooked on drugs, before doing drugs was cool.
That, now, would be more addicts than we have troops in the US military, 1.75-3M druggies.
It may be more or less than that, and frankly I don't care, it's too goddamned many.
And that's not counting the criminals involved in supply and distribution, nor any sort of accounting for the crimes committed by today's addicts.] 
Which is when things really got going, with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. 

Sorry to wake you from your stupor, and please, return your H.S. diploma immediately, and request a full refund for the substandard civics education you received.
Then use the internet for something worthwhile, and educate yourself properly.

There was Constitutional authority for all of this, since a century and more before you were born, upheld by eleventy different federal courts, including SCOTUS.
Welcome to Reality. Take off your coat and stay awhile.

So the truth is, we've tried everything people decry before, over and again, and it hasn't worked. Nor, in most cases, was it ever intended to work, for any reasonable value of that word.

The bureaucracy is a self-greasing axle.
Blow up the car, and all the riders, once and for all.

Over a century ago, if you only robbed or stole from someone it meant prison.
If you stole their cattle or horse (life-threatening offenses), killed them, tried to kill them, maimed them, or raped them, we just hanged you.

Put drug sales and distribution into category B, re-instate the former jurisprudence, and be done with it.

Post-death penalty recidivism  stands, perpetually, at 0%.

Game over.

As I said in previous Comments:
Are there some things that are so bad for society they cannot be permitted? Y or N.
If Y, cost isn't a consideration, except prudential economy with the public purse, to get the mostest result for the leastest bucks. 

I'll even throw a bone to the large and small "L" libertarians:
IDGAF what you do, in your home, privately, as long as you're the sole victim of your predilections.
(The inescapable fact that there are no such things as private addicts in 99.9999% of cases is not my problem.)
But the minute it affects spouse, children, neighbors, or anyone else, or enters the public street in any way, your ass is grass.

And sooner or later, either the state recognizes this, or the neighbors will dig in and do the job themselves, and the Three S's will kick in with a vengeance.

You could look it up.

Coincidental sidenote:
Check out Daily Timewaster's Catch Of The Day.

Part I

Part II
Part IV
Part V


Crew said...

Peter says "work smarter not harder."

The problem is, only smart people can work smarter.

Inner-city slum dwellers are not known for being smart.

AndrewInSF said...

There is no war on drugs. It’s not even a police action Vietnam style. What we do need is some DoD style war on the traffickers, producers, and distributors. I’m willing to bet it’s cheaper to do that vs continuing to spend hundreds of thousands per visit by the drug users. Suspend posse commitatus and clean up the streets; purge day on drug dealers. make it a regular thing and we get rid of our urban problem and drug problem. The dealers don’t care about the damage they inflict on us, I don’t see why we need to enable their behavior.

For those who say to legalize drugs come visit SF. Take a morning stroll and you will find someone passed out with a needle sticking out of their arm. I regularly see drug users passed out on the street, cops too busy trying to get the crazy& violent off the street, and the paramedics picking up the same fuckers day in and day out. Meanwhile, us law abiding citizens have to fend for ourselves and not being able to get police, paramedic, etc other services because they are wasted in the same set of people. My building ended up getting private armed security to keep our block safe. Don’t make the mistake of legalizing drugs and make this a country wide problem.

Anonymous said...

“And the guards will quit en masse before they'll cater drugs to their charges, because they don't wanna deal with junkies freaking out there any more than I do in the ER.”
FYI, former addicts in prison receive suboxen strips from the medical department; thank Chris Christie and Phil Murphy,

Anonymous said...

The following video splains a lot:

Cederq said...

Thank you Aesop for this series of articles on drugs. Normie can't or won't understand the problem because it doesn't hit them hard enough, just inconvenience them a little. Twenty years a nurse in the Portland Oregon area in Psych (Dual Diagnoses, Drug/ETOH, Mental Illness) and ED department. Same MF's all the time. You could set your watch and calendar to them as to when they showed up. People should spend two 12hr weekend shift in a ED to witness the refuse that comes in and why one of the reason their healthcare costs are high. People can't understand why we use to cut clothes off to avoid sticking fingers and hand with hidden needles and dope in their pockets and then burning their clothes even on "normal" people. I agree wholeheartedly to allow EMT/Para's the right to stamp DNR on their heads with indelible ink and drive away. Same way with Nurses/Docs in ER if they present themselves and turn them away. Like you said, they use to hang horse-thieves.

CDH said...

If you are willing to advocate bullets you are a much colder person than I am. Let them go commit slow suicide in a 'safe space' away from the innocent. Heck the tax burden is still much further in the black vs the current 'plan'. Much cheaper, and much easier on the morals. Advocating the Pb cure goes way out across a line I don't think should be advocated, morals, slippery slope, and all that.

Reltney McFee said...

I worked as a mid level (NP/PA) in a county lockup, in Fly Over Country. No narcs. No Seroquel. No sleepers. One dude came in, asserting that he took 90 mg of methadone daily (N-I-N-E-T-Y!!! That's an ASS LOAD of methadone!!!). He was not allowed to take his methadone. Interestingly enough, he had absolutely no abstinence syndrome symptoms. None. Zero. Nada. And, I and the corrections officers checked. Frequently.

So, no narcs in my, limited, experience, while in jail.

Mike_C said...

First, FWIW, if I were God-Emperor of the World, my solution would be exactly the "suicide in a safe space" plan. You wanna do heavy-duty drugs, you are given (literally given, as in free) a furnished little efficiency apartment, food, high-speed Internet, and all the drugs of your choice plus needles or whatever accessories you need. But in exchange you never go to hospital or get Narcan again. Never. And when it's all over, cremation and a neat, respectful burial. And I've made the same economic argument you alluded to about how that would be cheaper than the mess we currently have. And with less collateral damage to hospitals, bystanders innocent and not-so-innocent, and most importantly, less damage to the rule of law. But that'll never happen. Not possible.

Second, I see from your profile that you're an engineer. From that I presume you've not been on the direct patient-care end of medicine. (But I don't know you, so forgive me for presuming wrong if I'm in error.) I did clinical medicine for a number of years (not as long as Aesop, or Cederq or any number of the medicos who hang out here), and my experience has been mostly academic hospitals not-serving the inner city, which is a long way of saying that I mostly have NOT seen the badness that people such as Aesop have. Even at that, the frustration of dealing with drug seekers, "frequent flyers" and frankly dangerous drug criminals was almost enough to offset the satisfaction and privilege of caring for ordinary folks. The tremendous waste of money and other resources is only a small part of the anger and frustration.

MOST of the clinical medical people I know, when we let our hair down and "shop talk" amongst ourselves, purely HATE dealing with unrepentant-addict frequent flyers, and no small proportion would indeed advocate for intrancranial injection of lead as a cure. Not saying that we would DO it (or otherwise murder people), but the frustration is severe enough that it sounds like a good idea when you're 20 hours into a double-12h shift taking care of actually sick people, and you literally have not had time to take a piss for the last 10 hours, and some asshole is threatening you with violence and/or lawsuit (yes, I've had this simultaneously!) unless you give them dilaudid. This is not intended as a personal attack on you, so hopefully you won't take it that way, but I understand *exactly* where our bloghost is coming from.

Finally, speaking of our bloghost (and I don't think this is a PERSEC violation here) in real-life he's actually a respectful and polite person. And frankly more generous and inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt than I am, so far as I can tell. Plus he's definitely more optimistic about the future of this country than I am.

Aesop said...

I'm advocating bullets in the head for dealers, distributors, etc.
Not for simple users.

For the addicts, give them nothing.
And I mean NOTHING.
No free drugs.
No medical care. Ever.
No 9-1-1. No ambulance ride.
No social services. No Medicaid. No welfare.
No hospital visits.
They are completely, utterly, totally, on their own.

If they ever get clean and sober, and stay that way non-stop, after five years, they can have a library card again.
If they make it to ten years without relapse, we can start talking about giving them everything else back, over time.

But if they break any other (burglary, robbery, theft, DUI, etc.) laws related to maintaining their drug habit, and I'd string them up as an automatic enhancement.

Drugs are illegal. They can still go score them, and do all they can do.
We'll take care of addressing the distribution network.
(And if we catch Jimmy Junkie dealing, he's also toast.)

But if they crap on the sidewalk, shoot up in the public park, break into cars to support their habit, or any of 500 other felonies and misdemeanors, they just violated the laissez faire social contract that says "IDGAF what you do behind closed doors, as long as it stays there".
Consequences follow like thunder follows lightning.

When I said "Why not just shoot them in the head", I was lampooning the soft-headed "let's give them a blanket and a teddy bear, and buy them a shit-ton of drugs" answer, as if a comfortable suicide is morally superior to just shooting them in the head, and ending their problems and suffering (and ours) on the spot.

You go buy them that, out of your wallet.
If it's coming out of so much as a dime of public money, which means my taxes, fuck that.
That teat is dried up.

Go be a do-gooder with your own goddam funds; stop expecting me to carry those bastards on my back, along with the shiftless, the indigent, and 40M illegals.
My back hurts, and I'm sick of it.

Anyone who wants to buy the world a Coke can damned well do it with his own effing pocket change.
Leave me the hell out of it.

Aesop said...


And BTW, as for letting them expire in their own good time in a "safe space", where exactly would that be, praytell?

Will you be volunteering a spare room in your house for that?
How d'ya suppose your neighbors are going to feel about that plan?

Or did you just figure to palm them off on someone else's neighborhood in BFE, and just NIMBY the constant problems they'll bring onto somebody besides you?

Maybe even jack my property taxes to build them a nice quiet house in some other zip code, perhaps?

Or were you planning on sending them to Area 51, Gitmo, or Ceti Alpha IV?

Just curious.

Because if you're not willing to put them up in your house, why should anyone else have to pay for your whiz-kid ideas with their neighborhood's peace and quiet?

Shit just got real, I bet.

Reltney McFee said...

Dear Aesop: or. Perhaps, Mr. Musk could simply rocket them into low earth orbit, eject, return, repeat.

Just like C. J. Kornbluth's "Marching Morons".

Cederq said...

I laughed wholeheartedly at Reltney McFee's suggestion of C.J. Kornbluth's "Marching Morons." Diet Pepsi over my screen kind of laugh.

TiredPoorHuddled Masses said...

Great stuff, Aesop. The more I read, the more I realize the solution is rehabilitation. And no, not the hippie dippie Swedish vacation regimen or the .45 to the skull protocol. I'm talking actual help. Psychological training, improved education, surgical targeting of enabling influences, whatever. Maybe that means a paradigm shift, or a top down reexamining of addiction in America, but it certainly can't be more work than killing all the druggies or sticking them all in the pokie.

Aesop said...

More work? You'll be working three jobs just to pay for it.
Non-starter, from coast to coast, right there.

And what about the serial rehab failures?

How much money wasted on that is enough?

How many bites at the apple do we give junkies, coming out of your paycheck?

Where do you draw that line, and why there?
Or do they get an infinite pass?
If so, why mollycoddle them, while taxing and punishing only the law-abiding and productive?
That's ass-backwards.

Like I said, cut them off the first time.
Laissez faire, bitchez. Do drugs? You're a legal and economic pariah.
Unfuck yourself, on your own, or die. Nobody cares.

If they break the law on top of that, off with their heads.

If you want to buy the world a Coke, do it privately, with your own nickel.
No one will stop you.
I gave at the office.

Differ said...

You might be onto something with this proposal;
"We should be mandating that dealers put carfentanil into every heroin dose. It wipes out the cities' entire heroin addict populations overnight."
Perhaps that's already being done....

Anonymous said...

If you made cigarettes illegal the mob would distribute them, if you made it a lesser crime they would only get a couple of months in jail when caught.
Why would you still sell heroin and get 20 years in prison when you could sell smokes.
Why move drugs that don’t have as high a mark up and your customers are allways dying and turning guns on you?
Ban cigarettes and it will crush the drug trade.
You know why that won’t happen? Cause it costs a buck fifty to make a pack and we are buying them at 15 dollars a pack here in Canada.
Cause the government *IS* the mob.

TiredPoorHuddled Masses said...

If at first you don't succeed, sailor...
These are all valid points, Aesop. Except for the Nobody cares bit. Categorically untrue. Somebody cares. There's always somebody. No, not just Jesus, but him too.
Rehab rhymes with rehabilitation, but the kind you're talking about is the one that needs a total reexamination. I'm talking attack the problem from the opposite side. (It is Supply and Demand, right?)
How many bites at the apple? However many the rich can afford until America kicks the habit. That's incentive I can get behind.
Yes, we're making them pay for it. You and I can't afford it, but Mr. Forbes 500 can.
Also, I'm more of a Pepsi guy.

TiredPoorHuddled Masses said...

You won't feel the same when it's your daughter :(

Robin Datta said...

"we should be mandating that dealers put carfentanil into every heroin dose."👍🏼✔️👏

A.B. Prosper said...

Robu=in Datta, we did something like this during prohibition with wood alcohol the result we blinded and killed quite a few people whose soul crime was disobeying a stupid immoral law.

Like it or not there is no way to beat supply and demand, you lack the moral authority or power to deal with either. There is no bomb Mexico action as the US lacks the will to do it and will not suffer the risk of a truly massive latino insurgency in its cities

if 3% of Latinos decide the US has to go that is 1.5 million young men all armed, more than a few with military training and urban warfare experience we provided.

That is also a tiny percentage of them

The only working option we have right now is harm mitigation otherwise we just keep going brazil 2.0 for the near future

There are numerous ways to deal with harm reduction but surely this discussion would bore our host silly

The only way you can "win" the war on drugs is to have basically a closed border and build a very stable society with strong families, jobs with good pay and long term prospects, a homogeneous moral culture that eschews intoxication and some small degree of harm mitigation.

If you can find a way to do this, you can win the war on drugs to a high degree and after a decade or two you'll have ditch weed, shrooms, booze and cigs and little else and more importantly little demand for the hard stuff

Get back to me when you get get the culture, demography and economy of 1955 and trade system of 1935 (93% domestic)

AuricTech Shipyards said...

Under your proposal, I suspect that organized crime would embrace the power of "and," which would worsen the problem.

The Gray Man said...

Your reference to Don Corleone makes my eye twitch a bit.

He wanted nothing to do with the Turk’s heroine business.

Aesop said...

Hence the Mob war that followed.

As for druggies, if Jesus cares, let him pay for it.
Even the Good Samaritan took care of the victim, not the thieves.

As for "no way out", that's a cop out.
We didn't magic ourselves into this situation, and we won't magic our way out of it, but anything done can be undone.

The first step is not quitting before we start.

buddhaha said...

"But I'm experimental: let's execute all the producers and suppliers of illegal narcotics, and then see what needs doing after that."

That *almost* works in Singapore, a small island with a pretty homogeneous population and, essentially,a dictatorship. It's been proposed here for years, so, in the spirit of "things which will never be" how about this: Give the shit away for free,except that 1 out of 10 is pure fentanyl. They'll just start to grin when the lights go out.

Aesop said...

Pure fentanyl would be weak sauce.
That's actual pharmacy-grade drug, produced for medical usage.

Pure carfentanil, the garage-brewed-only designer version, is about 50,000 times stronger(IIRC), and it's what's been killing addicts in the mostly imaginary "opioid epidemic". Usually DRT, with the syringe plunger still in their hand.

One question: if you're going to give it away anyways, why not make it 9 out of 10 doses, or 10 out of 10?

I can't see any down side, except the one-time subsidy of mass seppuku, and the other problematic result: it doesn't kill off any of the producers, importers, and dealers. Shoot them up too, and we've got a winner.

You won't see people flocking to supply a demand that's been cut by 99%, and at that point, it's no worse than any other crime problem.