Prompted by “The fully demonstrated and absolutely unsurprising consequences of criminalization”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/05/the-fully-demonstrated-and-absolutely-unsurprising-consequences-of-criminalization/
“It would be nice to say that the war on drugs had achieved nothing. The truth is far worse.
The truth is the war on drugs has filled our jails, enriched the worst among us, wasted scarce police resources and blotted up millions of dollars that could have been far better spent. It has been an unmitigated disaster and it needs to stop.”
And yet after decades of sustaining that “unmitigated disaster” (“utter failure”, to use President Obama’s words prior to attaining his presidency), and while only cannabis legality increases by tortured law, there is at best a slow trickle of opposition against that sustainment.
“But if many now argue that drugs should be treated as a health problem rather than a law enforcement one, few are prepared to take the next step and call for full legalisation.” [emphasis mine]
Relationships (romantic, etc.) fail without proper communication, and that preparation is missing, because communication has failed in this case (i.e. our community relationship with each other has failed in this case). Words forming the emphasis in that last quote contains the reason why the war on some drugs rages on, despite the literally “slam dunk” case against it.
The reason why my journal offers different informational results is the strict reliance (from years of constant exercise elsewhere prior to authoring this journal) of purely logical reasoning without reason abuse (e.g. spin). This is a real no-spin zone (e.g. one without leveraging rude interruption and biased berating to effectively form spin abusively in the apparently more-recognized and so-called no-spin zone).
Society’s avoidance of verbal logic is shattering (even mainstream science is apparently solely focused upon mathematical language), and that avoidance (including the conflicts of interest abusively reasoned by that avoidance) are to blame at least for the heavily socially devastating war on some drugs.
Often when people think of logic, if they are even fairly familiar with Star Trek, they think of the brilliant character Spock. People abandon the burden of truly keeping it real (being fully logical), because reality infinitely transcends any logical expression — i.e. spirituality transcends logic, so logic is disrespected as incomplete (if not idealistic). Spock demonstrated the limits of that common view of logic by expressing an eyebrow raising confusion after witnessing seemingly illogical human behavior (the key word is seemingly). Just because Spock could not grasp the full logic forming that behavior does not mean that behavior was ultimately illogical.
Based upon mainstream science, reality is an ocean of energy from humanity’s perspective, so an unimaginable number of energetic currents of all sizes (including ones outside of the range of perception) form the overwhelming complexity that we call reality. Irrationality is simply the absence of grasping all of the applicable currents (e.g. not understanding all of the energetic forces forming that irrational human behavior), but the currents are fully logical (ultimately the result is purely sinusoidal, according to mainstream science’s understanding of waveforms).
Never to be pretentious (arrogant, egotistical, etc.) about it (my best results come from a unique view, not a better one when all is said and done), while my best example of that fully logical nature forms Reality Waveform Theory, the actual “theory of everything” (as mainstream scientists call it during their ‘holy grail’ pursuit of it, without knowing it already exists here — feel free to let them know) leveraging verbal logic to fill in the gaps, so fits all credible scientific establishments (it even validates Einstein’s instincts against quantum physics — without sacrificing the tried-and-true existence of quantum physics — that fact alone would logically impress even the best physicists), we can return to this Certain Drug Prohibition issue by way of similar verbal logic. Reality Waveform Theory, as should be expected of a theory of everything, equals fully logical spirituality.
Vagueness is the enemy of communication.
Computers can do many things (including overwhelmingly complex things), but they always operate on a strictly logical instruction set. The best software programmer can never tell a computer to just be reasonable (even though the dictionary.com defines reasonable as “logical”), because the computer would have no idea what to do with that vague instruction.
Humanity has no idea what to do with that instruction either, and the result is a “muddy” mess (e.g. war on some drugs).
To become “prepared to take the next step and call for full” legalization, the public must clearly understand the issue.
The word drugs is terribly vague, so saying “drugs should be treated as a health problem” makes no sense. There are many (if not demonstrably overwhelmingly most) instances of drug use without problem. Drug use sometimes solves problems, and that not only includes the obvious medical application of drugs, but also drugs such as caffeine. If you use (not abuse) coffee, then why should drugs be treated as a health problem? Confusion is the result. That confusion problem is so bad, even some drug abuse prevention experts advertise themselves as against “drugs and alcohol addiction” (alcohol is a drug, scientifically speaking).
Moreover, there is no hard-line separation between use and abuse. That one sentence is the real reason why the war on some drugs (and the literally millions, if not billions, of non-violent lives ruined over the span of several decades and counting) largely rages onwards.
Linguists have a challenging duty to improve language in a way that does not ironically deteriorate language (e.g. people unable to keep up with latest language improvements form confusion). In this case, to negate serious (including deadly) public confusion, the word “use” should strictly mean any action without objectively proven harm, and the word “abuse” should strictly mean any action with objectively proven harm. That is verbal logic in awesome action.
Substance use disorder (or such) would no longer be valid, but substance abuse would remain proper (and more efficient — another important property of communication).
Since there is no such thing as an “abuse only” drug (as a neurological expert confirmed in his video inserted into my last post), there is no logical need for the war on some drugs. Such a war grossly pathetically (and demonstrably) misses the mark literally horribly, and that is the solid message that “drug warriors” (e.g. DEA) and the rest of humanity should be receiving. That message, in accordance with the journalism code of ethics (essentially a formally documented code, despite gross negligence too often exercised by mainstream journalists against that code to serious public detriment) and the public’s right to know, should be constantly broadcasted due to its heavily negative societal impact well beyond the devastation of weather events nationally reported daily these days — not essentially ignored (another reason why that war devastatingly rages onwards).
Logically speaking, all drug use (including harmless actions surrounding that use — e.g. drug possession and transportation) should at least fall under the unalienable right to liberty (that fundamentally concisely defined right needed to prevent law abuse — the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, also logically speaking). The war on some drugs is a blatant infringement upon that right, and that should be the crime. Scientific constitutionalism is apparently needed to restore that supremely righteous prevention within humanity’s scope, so if you’re interested, my Liberty Shield introduction offers full grounding on the subject of liberty and law with the tried-and-true scientific mindset.
Drug abuse (like any form of abuse) is fundamentally a health issue. The notion that even murder (or any other form of survival by community destruction — theft, assault, fraud, etc.) is not equal to mental illness (see insanity plea) is ironically insane. Isolating rights-infringers makes sense to prevent more infringement, but to irrationally insist upon accountability upon demonstrated insanity is simply wrong (the fact is reality drives us by any fully honest measure) — so sends the wrong message against a healthy community relationship, so forms unhealthy stress that logically leads to more insanity (crimes against community).
The astute among you will see the blurred lines between verbal logic and mathematical logic (mathematical symbols are defined by words). Ironically, the word verbal is not an absolute, so words perhaps fail me here, but the pursuit of concise language never fails (when humanity seeks improvement).