Failed prohibition

[neoplacebo]

Hell, I wouldn't chew on anybody's face even if I were in the desperate depths of an ether binge, and chewing on something would certainly alleviate the profuse salivating common with ether madness.

I'm assuming the smell of ripening meat was overwhelming to the dog.
Since you said that, do you remember some time back about the stories of drug-crazed weirdo's chewing on people's faces? Hell, the victims were alive!

I remember a few years ago the young guy in FL that chewed someone's face while under the influence of drugs.....don't know what happened to him. As I recall, the chewer and chewee were both conscious at the time. This could be a case in which drugs are mostly to blame, but this face chewer could have gotten a gun instead and blown someone's face away because he couldn't get or someone wouldn't give him.......drugs.

[Leo Lyons]

Let me guess from the responses - Leo Lyons is again whining about some negative effects of drugs that we're ALL aware of, while being too cowardly to admit that his failed prohibition did NOTHING to stop those negative effects from being manifested and only ADDED to the societal problems.

Vrede's whining about me whining!

Let me guess - "Leo posted, but I didn't look at it" Who do you think you're fooling, little boy?

Get help, you poor sociopathic little child. Here's a professional recommendation for you: (same age and education level)

[Leo Lyons]

I remember a few years ago the young guy in FL that chewed someone's face while under the influence of drugs.....don't know what happened to him. As I recall, the chewer and chewee were both conscious at the time. This could be a case in which drugs are mostly to blame, but this face chewer could have gotten a gun instead and blown someone's face away because he couldn't get or someone wouldn't give him.......drugs.

Nutjob on drugs --- a bad mix.

Wouldn't have happened if drugs were legal---or "controlled".

[O Really]

Wouldn't have happened if drugs were legal---or "controlled".

You're right, Leo - and since the substance he was using was illegal, the event obviously didn't happen.

[neoplacebo]

I remember a few years ago the young guy in FL that chewed someone's face while under the influence of drugs.....don't know what happened to him. As I recall, the chewer and chewee were both conscious at the time. This could be a case in which drugs are mostly to blame, but this face chewer could have gotten a gun instead and blown someone's face away because he couldn't get or someone wouldn't give him.......drugs.

Nutjob on drugs --- a bad mix.

Wouldn't have happened if drugs were legal---or "controlled".

Well, that ain't the guy I was referring to.....the one I remember was also in FL but the victim was not dead....the one you reference happened after the one I am thinking of. However, I dispute your assertion that "(it) wouldn't have happened if drugs were legal or controlled." What do you base that statement on? Do you really think that either of these face munchers would have readily bought such a drug (probably an animal tranquilizer never intended for human use) if they were told ahead of time that whatever it is may make you do unimaginable things and perhaps result in serious injury or death if you use it? And further, as the supplier I have no idea of the proper dose in any case. I submit that either face muncher would have opted to mosey down to the local pot dispensary instead of putting themselves at the mercy of someone who may or may not know what he's selling. Furthermore, if either muncher could have gone down to the local pot shop, neither would have opted to use animal tranquilizers to get stoned. Here's what you're missing: there would be no market for animal tranquilizers, and probably no face munching, if pot and other commonly used intoxicants were regulated and available to adult individuals. And to head off your probable retort that legalizing and regulating would result in dramatically increased numbers of folks using "drugs." Nonsense......lots of folks choose not drink alcohol, even though they could. I bet you those same folks, or any other folks that don't use recreational drugs, would not begin doing so if those drugs were regulated and legal. Would you? I can definitely say that if heroin were legal and came with free syringes and instructions, I would not go and get some heroin. Well, that's about it. I'm going to go break the law now.

[Vrede too]

... And to head off your probable retort that legalizing and regulating would result in dramatically increased numbers of folks using "drugs." Nonsense......lots of folks choose not drink alcohol, even though they could. I bet you those same folks, or any other folks that don't use recreational drugs, would not begin doing so if those drugs were regulated and legal. Would you? I can definitely say that if heroin were legal and came with free syringes and instructions, I would not go and get some heroin. Well, that's about it. I'm going to go break the law now.

Your logic is rock solid, but we don't even need to rely on it. We now have the evidence from several nations that easing drug laws does NOT lead to more abuse (or faces being munched). Then, in more tolerant places drug abusers are able to do so more safely and at less cost to society. So, the questions are - what is the point of prohibition and why did so many people spend their careers enforcing it?

[neoplacebo]

I understand. Sometimes it's more effective to try and explain complex matters in a simple way to attempt to get a point across to those with a simple attitude to the matter.

[Vrede too]

I understand. Sometimes it's more effective to try and explain complex matters in a simple way to attempt to get a point across to those with a simple attitude to the matter.

Agreed, it can be very difficult to reason with prohibition addicts. All we can do is stay calm, be there for them and hope that one day they want to get better.

[O Really]

Once can't believe in the efficacy of prohibition and also believe in the law of supply and demand.

[neoplacebo]

Once can't believe in the efficacy of prohibition and also believe in the law of supply and demand.

Historically, it's been bad medicine to try and prohibit anything that's generally accepted by at least 25% of the population.......it never works and only results in stupidity and misguided morality. Examples are religion, fucking, sucking, alcohol, drugs, rock and roll, and Justin Bieber.

[Leo Lyons]

Dollar Tree employee trashes store while on drugs

[O Really]

Dollar Tree employee trashes store while on drugs

Nope. Can't happen. Drug testing policy.

[Leo Lyons]

However, I dispute your assertion that "(it) wouldn't have happened if drugs were legal or controlled." What do you base that statement on? Do you really think that either of these face munchers would have readily bought such a drug (probably an animal tranquilizer never intended for human use) if they were told ahead of time that whatever it is may make you do unimaginable things and perhaps result in serious injury or death if you use it?
I was being snarky. It appears the liberal consensus here is if drugs are legal or controlled, there would be less drug problems.

And further, as the supplier I have no idea of the proper dose in any case. I submit that either face muncher would have opted to mosey down to the local pot dispensary instead of putting themselves at the mercy of someone who may or may not know what he's selling. Furthermore, if either muncher could have gone down to the local pot shop, neither would have opted to use animal tranquilizers to get stoned. Here's what you're missing: there would be no market for animal tranquilizers, and probably no face munching, if pot and other commonly used intoxicants were regulated and available to adult individuals. And to head off your probable retort that legalizing and regulating would result in dramatically increased numbers of folks using "drugs." Nonsense......lots of folks choose not drink alcohol, even though they could. I bet you those same folks, or any other folks that don't use recreational drugs, would not begin doing so if those drugs were regulated and legal. Would you?
I got a reprimand once for failing to pursue charges on a simple possession of pot because of my personal opinion of pot use; however I would readily bust anyone for peddling the hard shit. I've seen the misery, devastation, and sexual exploitation of drug addiction, and it's not pretty. Drugs are nobody's friend, dealers are opportunists, caring not whom they destroy. I don't regret one day of my (quote:) "failed prohibition". I'd do it all over again.

I can definitely say that if heroin were legal and came with free syringes and instructions, I would not go and get some heroin.
If you were addicted to it, you would be surprised at what you would (there's rarely any 'would not') do to get it.

Heroin is comparable to an overdose of aspirin compared to much of the scary shit out there; there's some bad, bad stuff that the drug advocates can't seem to grasp how volatile and dangerous it is. Most drug advocates still think DEA wants to take away their nose candy and their pot. That stuff right there is barely the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks for your input. Compared to the previous hateful banter, it was a breath of fresh air!

[Leo Lyons]

Dollar Tree employee trashes store while on drugs

Nope. Can't happen. Drug testing policy.

And drug testing is 100% effective. And drugs aren't dangerous. Got it. :thumbsup:

[Leo Lyons]

what is the point of prohibition and why did so many people spend their careers enforcing it?

Let's cut the snark and be serious a moment.
I said before that petty amounts (to me) of pot was not my main concern; I was diligent on the hard crap. Failure or success of prohibition was not my goal; I worked for the moment and got great satisfaction out of major drug busts. So now I ask you:

Why did (does) so many people spend their careers working in a profession that treats drug addiction, or works feverishly to save the life of an overdosed addict? Did you find it enjoyable when a young parent suffering from an overdose was wheeled into an emergency room clinging to a thin sliver of life? Did you find it enjoyable when someone incoherent on drugs and was ripped apart in a car accident, was wheeled into an emergency room? Or maybe someone they struck with their car?

I could go on, but you get my drift.
My job was to hopefully stop those instances from happening; your job was to treat them when they weren't caught and suffered the consequences . .
Are we that much different?

[Vrede too]

Nope. Can't happen. Drug testing policy.

Nope. Can't happen. Drugs are illegal and people like Leo Lyons make sure that prohibition is enforced without failure.

[O Really]

what is the point of prohibition and why did so many people spend their careers enforcing it?

Let's cut the snark and be serious a moment.
I said before that petty amounts (to me) of pot was not my main concern; I was diligent on the hard crap. Failure or success of prohibition was not my goal; I worked for the moment and got great satisfaction out of major drug busts. So now I ask you:

Why did (does) so many people spend their careers working in a profession that treats drug addiction, or works feverishly to save the life of an overdosed addict? Did you find it enjoyable when a young parent suffering from an overdose was wheeled into an emergency room clinging to a thin sliver of life? Did you find it enjoyable when someone incoherent on drugs and was ripped apart in a car accident, was wheeled into an emergency room? Or maybe someone they struck with their car?

I could go on, but you get my drift.
My job was to hopefully stop those instances from happening; your job was to treat them when they weren't caught and suffered the consequences . .
Are we that much different?

Problem is, people like to find sweeping, fix-it-all solutions for complex problems. But you have to consider for each potential approach/action what will it be able to accomplish, knowing that nothing is 100% successful. It's certainly possible that some people never did any drugs because of fear of the illegality; it's certainly possible that by catching a drug marketer you took away some access to product; and it's possible that by arresting a user and sending them off where drugs are temporarily not available, maybe their life was saved. It's also possible that if a user wasn't afraid of being arrested, s/he might find some medical help; it's possible that if drug abuse prevention was social/medical based instead of criminal-based that other lives might be saved.

I can tell you that employer drug-testing programs are absolutely not cost-effective, and they don't identify any more users than just paying attention to the employees. That's not my conclusion - that's the conclusion of an extensive study of employer drug-testing in Florida from around late 80's to around early 2000's. But doing collection and lab screens and reading results became a big money making industry. Essentially performing a service that didn't need to be performed and didn't provide any benefit to the client and charging a lot for the service.

[Vrede too]

That's a lofty goal for your job but the fact, proven over 50+ years, is that it failed miserably. The real goals and achievements of your efforts are to have:

Added to the drug related morbidity and mortality, as O Really says, through making it more difficult for "criminals" to access treatment, and through diverting resources to law enforcement that should have gone to prevention and treatment;

Created an entire industry that doesn't exist without YOU - all of the pushers from the street corner thug up to cartel bosses;

Added massively to the directly drug related morbidity and mortality the predictable and unavoidable violence that the entire industry YOU created uses to maintain and enhance its position;

Added massive amounts of other crime associated with black market drug sales and purchase;

Expanded enforcement to an entire self-serving industry, the prison-industrial complex, whose prime goal is not to reduce drug use but rather to maintain its own income and job security for untold numbers of fat cats down to, I assume, peons like you;

Big of you to admit that it was about pay and personal gratification and that, "Failure or success of prohibition was not (your) goal". No surprise that you can't see how disgusting that is. I'm trained in science, not in pursuing "feelings" that harm others;

Corrupted entire police departments, and even destroyed respect for non-corrupt cops;

Destabilized entire neighborhoods, communities and nations, largely creating the refugee "crisis" that is currently national issue #1;

Created whole generations of children that have been fed self-serving half-truths by your ilk and its abettors;

Repressed nonwhites;

Needlessly torn apart far more families than the drugs alone ever did;

Gutted the Constitution;

Cost us trillions, with O Really providing just one example that he's expert on.

These are not my feelings, there's piles of science behind each assertion.

In my profession it was a given that everyone that walked through the door would be hurting and needy in some way of the other. So, no, one patient was not any more "enjoyable" than another because of their diagnosis. What was enjoyable were the saves and contributing to them, and there were a lot more of those than losses. Whether fat, a smoker, a drunk, a daredevil, stupid, unlucky, etc. OR a druggie, they walked away with a chance to make better choices.

To the extent possible, I incorporated and still advocate the principles of Harm Reduction, sadly knowing that it's woefully limited by hostility from your team and resource diversion by it.

So, yes, we ARE that much different. You ARE the enemy. No matter what lies you tell yourself, there is nothing redeeming about what you did and still defend. Man up and deal with the "snark", you've earned it and will get more of it EVERY time you take on this topic.

[billy.pilgrim]

That's a lofty goal for your job but the fact, proven over 50+ years, is that it failed miserably. The real goals and achievements of your efforts are to have:

Added to the drug related morbidity and mortality, as O Really says, through making it more difficult for "criminals" to access treatment, and through diverting resources to law enforcement that should have gone to prevention and treatment;

Created an entire industry that doesn't exist without YOU - all of the pushers from the street corner thug up to cartel bosses;

Added massively to the directly drug related morbidity and mortality the predictable and unavoidable violence that the entire industry YOU created uses to maintain and enhance its position;

Added massive amounts of other crime associated with black market drug sales and purchase;

Expanded enforcement to an entire self-serving industry, the prison-industrial complex, whose prime goal is not to reduce drug use but rather to maintain its own income and job security for untold numbers of fat cats down to, I assume, peons like you;

Big of you to admit that it was about pay and personal gratification and that, "Failure or success of prohibition was not (your) goal". No surprise that you can't see how disgusting that is. I'm trained in science, not in pursuing "feelings" that harm others;

Corrupted entire police departments, and even destroyed respect for non-corrupt cops;

Destabilized entire neighborhoods, communities and nations, largely creating the refugee "crisis" that is currently national issue #1;

Created whole generations of children that have been fed self-serving half-truths by your ilk and its abettors;

Repressed nonwhites;

Needlessly torn apart far more families than the drugs alone ever did;

Gutted the Constitution;

Cost us trillions, with O Really providing just one example that he's expert on.

These are not my feelings, there's piles of science behind each assertion.

In my profession it was a given that everyone that walked through the door would be hurting and needy in some way of the other. So, no, one patient was not any more "enjoyable" than another because of their diagnosis. What was enjoyable were the saves and contributing to them, and there were a lot more of those than losses. Whether fat, a smoker, a drunk, a daredevil, stupid, unlucky, etc. OR a druggie, they walked away with a chance to make better choices.

To the extent possible, I incorporated and still advocate the principles of Harm Reduction, sadly knowing that it's woefully limited by hostility from your team and resource diversion by it.

So, yes, we ARE that much different. You ARE the enemy. No matter what lies you tell yourself, there is nothing redeeming about what you did and still defend. Man up and deal with the "snark", you've earned it and will get more of it EVERY time you take on this topic.

Bingo

[billy.pilgrim]

Dollar Tree employee trashes store while on drugs

Nope. Can't happen. Drug testing policy.

Where's leo?