Prohibition

[Darkfinn]

It's spelled cocain

Actually it's spelled cocaine.

[Rihanna]

Actually it's spelled cocaine.

ROFL

While we're at it, it is OxyContin, not oxycotton, although that is sometime the 'street' name used.

[Diapered Jason]

I love Cocaine. That Eric Clapton song is just so good.

[Yvhuce]

Since both dream worlds involve executing citizens for petty crimes, I guess yeah, I do miss your subtle differences.

You should note that I stated "a better world" and explicitly said that it wouldn't be a perfect world... A dream world is a perfect world, not a mere improvement upon the current world... If you're going to attack someone's position, then you'd better make sure you pay attention to what they're saying...

My dream world is a world without the problems that people turn to drugs to escape from. A world where my methods for improvement wouldn't have to include slaughtering people... A world where no one uses drugs or drinks, because that would make their experience of life worse. The ultimate prevention of something is by making it useless and completely obsolete. This would probly involve nanotech, since that would allow for one to experience more awesomeness than any drug could ever allow, and to also switch off effects and side-effects for stuff like driving. No more drunk or stoned drivers. No more people with impaired judgement with guns or heavy machinery. No more disease or injury... Considerably less death... No more screaming babies... No more migraines... No more glasses or contacts... No more mourning the family pet...

[Diapered Jason]

My dream world is a world without the problems that people turn to drugs to escape from. A world where my methods for improvement wouldn't have to include slaughtering people... A world where no one uses drugs or drinks, because that would make their experience of life worse. The ultimate prevention of something is by making it useless and completely obsolete. This would probly involve nanotech, since that would allow for one to experience more awesomeness than any drug could ever allow, and to also switch off effects and side-effects for stuff like driving. No more drunk or stoned drivers. No more people with impaired judgement with guns or heavy machinery. No more disease or injury... Considerably less death... No more screaming babies... No more migraines... No more glasses or contacts... No more mourning the family pet...

Wait what? I have no idea what you are saying. How did nanotechnology get in there?

[nitrous]

It's spelled cocain and there is too much money being made off the war on drugs. Too many peoples lives depend on it. It's sad too because they see how fleeting the war on drugs is. It's just pop culture at this point.

What do you mean by "its just pop culture at this point" and "how does the U.S. make money off of the war on drugs?" I thought we were losing money in this war? Not trying to criticize just want to understand please. Also thanks for the spell check.

[Darkfinn]

The US profits from the "war on drugs" by seizing drug shipments and money. The government spends the money and turns around and resells the drugs, getting them more money.

The war on drugs is a billion dollar a year industry... if it wasn't profitable the government wouldn't be involved in it.

[Diapered Jason]

The US profits from the "war on drugs" by seizing drug shipments and money. The government spends the money and turns around and resells the drugs, getting them more money.

The war on drugs is a billion dollar a year industry... if it wasn't profitable the government wouldn't be involved in it.

I disagree. The government sinks so much money into this and there is not really much of a return. The seized drugs are always burned, but they do sell seized assets. The problem is there are so many organizations involved at varying levels of the government. You have local police, FBI, DEA, Navy, U.S. customs, and there are more. I do not think there is profit, and trying to explain that by saying the government is only involved in profitable operations is credulous at best.

[Darkfinn]

I disagree. The government sinks so much money into this and there is not really much of a return. The seized drugs are always burned, but they do sell seized assets. The problem is there are so many organizations involved at varying levels of the government. You have local police, FBI, DEA, Navy, U.S. customs, and there are more. I do not think there is profit, and trying to explain that by saying the government is only involved in profitable operations is credulous at best.

It is profitable. The question is whom is it profitable for?

An example... our government appears to have lost money like mad on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there are companies and individuals that have made billions off of them. Among those are a large number of people very high up in government. They fill their pockets by bankrupting the nation.

If you think the "war on drugs" doesn't work the exact same way you need to wake up and see how America is really operating, and who is pulling the strings.

[Diapered Jason]

It is profitable. The question is whom is it profitable for?

An example... our government appears to have lost money like mad on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there are companies and individuals that have made billions off of them. Among those are a large number of people very high up in government. They fill their pockets by bankrupting the nation.

If you think the "war on drugs" doesn't work the exact same way you need to wake up and see how America is really operating, and who is pulling the strings.

I thought you meant the government was profiting off the war on drugs, not the contractors and certain politicians. Sorry for the confusion, but you directly said in your last post the government was profiting and that is simply not true. I would suggest mentioning the contractors and corrupt politicians are profiting off the war on drugs instead of the U.S. government next time.

[Darkfinn]

I thought you meant the government was profiting off the war on drugs, not the contractors and certain politicians. Sorry for the confusion, but you directly said in your last post the government was profiting and that is simply not true. I would suggest mentioning the contractors and corrupt politicians, not the U.S. government, are profiting off the war on drugs next time.

The contractors and politicians are the government. Those people and corporations control everything. Or perhaps you haven't seen the OWS protests.

[Diapered Jason]

The contractors and politicians are the government. Those people and corporations control everything. Or perhaps you haven't seen the OWS protests.

The government and the people who run the government are two different subjects, though they are related subjects. You can't say they are the same, you need to differentiate the two or else I will not know if you are talking about the government's treasury or the politician's pockets.

[timmyc]

Step 3: Kill all who go against it.

Step 4: Kill the rest of the criminals.

Step 5: Kill the politicians.

A world where my methods for improvement wouldn't have to include slaughtering people...

[diaperpt]

I hate to ask this question but I'll ask it anyways. We know that there is no way to stop illegal contriban such as cokane from entering the country. So how do we make it legal and not have it destroy people's lives? My uncle is an addict cand his life is fucked. But when I watched the History Chanel's documentary on drugs, it showed that cokane was handled in a some what controlled measure during the 19th century. It pointed to cocane being cocacola and Sherlock Holms injecting it into his vains as a normal part of his life (the character eventually kicked the habit) . So can we do the same here in these modern times, tame addictive drugs such as cocane and heroin? Should we reap tax benefits from those suffering from addiction or should be bankrupt ourselves in trying to win an un winable war on drugs? And if you do see a pathway to victory without burning the constitution, what do we do? The best case scenereo is turning the addicted population into slaves (that being paying them in drugs) for those who're complete junkies until they're ready to quit the habit. Do I think this is a good idea, fuck no. Do I think rehab helps? well I've had friend who's been in and out of rehab through most of his life because of oxycotton a drug that is just as addicting as heroin but yet still perscribed. How do we fix this world? I know imprisonment for posesion is bullshit (people get drugs inside prison too). So how do we fix it? I don't know.

You ask about your uncle. How has the war on drugs helped him? We just aren't 'winning'. Yes, we'd need 'strict' control of drugs as we do for alcohol - which we know only works to an extent. But all prohibition of alcohol did was to drive it underground and into the hands of gangs. We've worked so hard at erradicating drugs, that now we've got huge international 'cartels' rather than the 'mob' and 'gangs' we had during prohibition. I suspect those raking in money from the illicit drug trade will fight tooth and nail to prevent legalization of drugs.

We have the highest rate of incarceration in the world - mostly because of drugs. The rates for incarceration run highest for minorities (perhaps because they have traditionally been forced into the lower socio-economic classes (and don't give me...The American Dream, for that IS for almost everyone simply a DREAM!) I wish I had the figures on how much money we throw away keeping people in jail. And we know that by making drugs illegal, we are encouraging people into other crimes - up to and including murder. People who have long given up hope for advancement because they've been suppressed for so many years will jump at the chance to sell drugs as a means of having some money. Yes, their values are twisted - many of our poor struggle to maintain values and dignity in the face of incredible odds. And our present practice of favoring big business over all people from upper middle class down is only creating more poor.

I'm beginning to worry about hope for our future. Politics doesn't seem to be working. It seems to me that BOTH parties have sold out to the mega-rich.

Alcolhol ruins an incredible number of lives, just as your uncle's life has been ruined. There are a certain number of people who will be attracted to drugs and/or alcohol no matter what.

Maybe the answer to your question could be answered if we would try to work together (I guess not with the governement, because we seem to be held hostage by politics of politicians and them by lobbyists who represent the cause of so much of our problem!).

So many decry attempts at redistribution of wealth and cry out for a return to 'traditional American values'. If you go back to the founding of this nation, to the 1800's and even into the 1900's, you will NOT find the incredibly vast difference between wealth and poverty. We are not living in times that reflect the values so many cry out for and yet we as a society continue to allow the rape and plunder of the middle class at the hands of the rich.

When the Tea Party movement first began and was 'pure', as I heard what they were upset about I thought for sure that these were values I believed in and could support. Then the movement was co-opted by right wing Republicans and has gradually spun off into a horror show. Now we've got the 'Occupy' or '99%' movement. I don't want that taken over by left wing Democrats (though my views are fairly far left) because I fear it will be polluted by politicians in the same way the Tea Party movement has been.

When are we going to stop bashing each other - Republicans vs Democrats - and face the fact that ALL of us are being manipulated. Some have picked up on the cry that the Occupy groups are simply 'mobs'. We've championed the angry mobs around the world who've insisted on a better form of government for themselves - who've worked to win a little more justice and equity. Think back also to our own colonial days and the original Boston Tea Party. They were an angy mob, weren't they?

I don't know what it's going to take for us to work together instead of fighting each other. For a long time I've had a sense that there is a layer of people above us who really run the country and look at us fighting among ourselves while they laugh all the way to the bank.

I know this seems far afield from the prohibition thread, but I hate to see all the biting comments back and forth between us.

[Diapered Jason]

Playing off of what diaperpt said, I would mention that our constitution is parochial and needs to be edited in so many ways. We have the oldest written constitution of any democracy in the world. For starters, there must be separation of wealth and state. At the very least, corporate donations must be eliminated. The electoral college is pointless and should be removed, because the elections should not be limited to 4 or 5 states giving them the most sway on what a president does. Hopefully, this would also eliminate presidential candidate cloning as well, which is where the candidates take up the same side of the debate to get the swing states. One thing that really pisses me off is how we select our presidential candidates for the presidential election. Our current process gives so much power to states like Iowa where the race starts, because they practically determine who is going to win the presidential candidacy by choosing a front runner. Some other things to think about fixing is the Senate and possibly eliminating parties. These are just somethings off hand that I think are at the core of our problems that lead to blatant misrepresentation.

It would be interesting to hear what other people think about these changes.

[Yvhuce]

Wait what? I have no idea what you are saying. How did nanotechnology get in there?

Take your time and reread what I said... And pay attention this time... If you're still having trouble understanding, let me spell it out more clearly: Nanotech may be the ultimate anti-drug because it could be used to both surpass the experiences created by even the most potent of drugs and could do so with safeguards to prevent stuff like addiction, OD, DUI, etc, by switching off the effects when they'd be inappropriate. They'd also allow for virtual immortality and the complete eradication of disease and serious injury, by auto-healing us, and remove pain by disabling pain receptors or "unplugging" the pain center of our brain. If you need an even more simplified example: Go watch the episode of Futurama where Fry eats the truck stop egg salad sandwitch and substitute the worms with robots and then disregard his decision to get rid of them (because they were worms, not robots).

[Diapered Jason]

Take your time and reread what I said... And pay attention this time... If you're still having trouble understanding, let me spell it out more clearly: Nanotech may be the ultimate anti-drug because it could be used to both surpass the experiences created by even the most potent of drugs and could do so with safeguards to prevent stuff like addiction, OD, DUI, etc, by switching off the effects when they'd be inappropriate. They'd also allow for virtual immortality and the complete eradication of disease and serious injury, by auto-healing us, and remove pain by disabling pain receptors or "unplugging" the pain center of our brain. If you need an even more simplified example: Go watch the episode of Futurama where Fry eats the truck stop egg salad sandwitch and substitute the worms with robots and then disregard his decision to get rid of them (because they were worms, not robots).

I do not know what you have been told, but you are grossly over estimating the potential of nanotechnology. As far as we know, nanoscience is not capable of delivering these things you mention aside from the possible treatment of drug addiction though it will not help you if you are intoxicated.

What I know is the future of nanotechnology in medicine lies in areas such as diagnosis and drug delivery. Treatment and detection of cancer and DNA disorders are important goals there. I am talking about creating a multifunctional nanoparticle that allows us to detect tumors as well as attack them. Another possibility is gaining the ability to introduce DNA drugs into the nuclei of cells to treat genetic disorders. Perhaps, we may finally be able pass the blood-brain barrier and treat illnesses in the brain. There are also many potential electronic applications of nanotechnology here that will also give us many advantages. Lab on chips are mentioned in this area frequently.

These are the tangible goals we may reach in 10-20 years, but immortality is very far fetched at this point. Hell, if toxicologist find the nanomaterials to be too dangerous, this may not be possible at all.

Wow, I do not know how we got from prohibition to this, but I like this thread.

[Yvhuce]

I do not know what you have been told, but you are grossly over estimating the potential of nanotechnology. As far as we know, nanoscience is not capable of delivering these things you mention aside from the possible treatment of drug addiction though it will not help you if you are intoxicated.

What I know is the future of nanotechnology in medicine lies in areas such as diagnosis and drug delivery. Treatment and detection of cancer and DNA disorders are important goals there. I am talking about creating a multifunctional nanoparticle that allows us to detect tumors as well as attack them. Another possibility is gaining the ability to introduce DNA drugs into the nuclei of cells to treat genetic disorders. Perhaps, we may finally be able pass the blood-brain barrier and treat illnesses in the brain. There are also many potential electronic applications of nanotechnology here that will also give us many advantages. Lab on chips are mentioned in this area frequently.

These are the tangible goals we may reach in 10-20 years, but immortality is very far fetched at this point. Hell, if toxicologist find the nanomaterials to be too dangerous, this may not be possible at all.

Wow, I do not know how we got from prohibition to this, but I like this thread.

It's part of the "dream world" discussion. It's not likely possible to really slaughter all of the criminals and politicians, either. But that's also a nice dream... You really should pay more attention before posting.

[Diapered Jason]

It's part of the "dream world" discussion. It's not likely possible to really slaughter all of the criminals and politicians, either. But that's also a nice dream... You really should pay more attention before posting.

Fool, aside from some of your incoherent sentences, I know exactly what you said, and I am telling you your dream world won't work to your expectations. You still have to face reality. Say we do find the cure for every cancer, diabetes, AIDs, etc., I can guarantee you we will still be looking for a cure for something else. Say we do eliminate every criminal, then we will live life in constant fear for if we break one rule, we die. Say we do eliminate every politician, then who will run things? You? You are philosophizing about things that have already been thought of a long time ago and they did not work. Your "dream world" doesn't even work hypothetically.