Prompted by “It is clear we would all be better off if Jonathan P. Caulkins did not exist.”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2016/01/it-is-clear-we-would-all-be-better-off-if-jonathan-p-caulkins-did-not-exist/
My comment there for your convenience here…
I overall agree, Pete, but I’m unconvinced there’s intellect in this case.
The case against Certain Drug Prohibition (CDP) is a spectacular and undeniable slam-dunk, based upon the whole truth (and nothing but).
By any rationale, there’s no way CDP is constitutional (the blatantly illegally redefined Commerce Clause still atrociously stretched to condone the war on some drugs — so illegally negates the Supremacy Clause against state/local “anti-drug” laws — be lawfully damned).
Law enforcement is factually not enforcing law, but engaged in widespread treasonous sanctioned thuggery in the “land of the free” by any true intellectual assessment.
There’s not one shred of concrete evidence proving CDP is effective at all. We don’t even have a “drug-free” prison system, so the notion of a “drug-free” America (in whole or part) is demonstrably insane — not intellectual.
There’s concrete evidence proving taxpayers spend (actually waste) many billions of precious dollars annually to uphold CDP, which obviously unintellectually continues with the proposed complex judicial “alteration”.
There’s concrete evidence proving CDP is literally horribly mass destructive. Millions of non-violent lives have been ruined to varying degrees (including deadly ones) by what can only be described (without exaggeration) as idiotic evil.
At least in the case of cannabis, the fact is there’s no conclusive science proving any harm from moderate cannabis use (moderate simply covering all use without objectively proven harm), so at least Cannabis Prohibition is scientifically unwarranted. Converting suggestive research (actually obviously junk science) into tough-talking affirmations is the real harm here.
Proponents for CDP literally can’t sustain a single point in their favor. They’re completely vulnerable in the court of public opinion (the true highest court of the land), and the Internet (e.g. via us) — where persistent communication defies abusive reasoning — has proven key in wearing down the CDP behemoth with ample work still sadly remaining.
There’s nothing to righteously compromise here, but the need to thrust critically logically hard at this obvious evil (via actual intellect) to literally save millions of non-violent (actually innocent) lives.
“Choosing prohibition means choosing black markets; choosing legalization means choosing greater drug dependence. It is trite but true: A country can choose what kind of drug problem it wants, but it cannot choose not to have a drug problem.”
That must assume CDP works at all, which by any concrete measure — it doesn’t, so I see dishonesty (nonetheless the guise of “cleverly” building a selfish career out of blatant reason abuse at serious mass detriment), but I don’t see intellect.
Logic actually concludes that most people simply don’t need to use drugs, because their stress signature fits comfortably enough with oligarchical insistence. The best logic is market saturation has occurred, despite CDP.
Ending CDP isn’t about increasing drug use (or actually importantly, drug abuse).
Ending CDP is about ironically ending drug prohibition addiction (demonstrably the real drug problem) — a massive judicial construct built purely upon lies and effective thievery forming the macrocosm of the stereotypical heroin addict lying and stealing to get a fix. Drug prohibition abuse is massively enabled by the mainstream media via their addiction to impressive looking tragedy (their fix coming usually from law enforcement).
The pathetically missing idea that proper education in the information age won’t be a factor in guiding people towards or away from certain technologies (e.g. drugs) is not an exercise of intellect, but an excessively popular tool of fools.
Drug use is all about stress (from fun through healing).
Society still largely refuses to address the real problem — unhealthy stress — because defeatism (the ‘We are all stressed out, so get over it’ idiocy) is excessively embraced in this monstrous case.
Balance is stability. Anything solely contributing to your balance (including drug use) is completely positive.
Without a balance between a healthy work and relaxation ethic in this idiotic ‘work is productive, relaxation is not’ experience, that’s the logical source of mass unhealthy stress, so the source of drug (and any other form of) abuse.
Balance in this ‘there is no free lunch’ reality is also inevitable (mainstream scientifically speaking), so full payment for mass atrocity inevitably rests upon the foolish shoulders of beneficiaries of this gross (inter)national scam, so pitying them (while defending against their reckless and selfish mass destruction) is logically the sole exercise of intellect in this case.