Trump says Tylen Oil may be bad for pregnant women. Democrat women, some of them pregnant, do mass ingestions in protest.
My wife took no medicines during pregnancy. Religiously. Democrats now trust Big Pharma because Trump doesn't? Do Democrats realize how smart that makes them look? BTW Tylenol does not recommend its use during pregnancy.
100 years of Republican Medical Fascism Republicans started this Medical Fascism in 1914. They were going to end Drug Addiction. They made it worse. Six years later the same kind of law was made to end alcohol addiction. We ended that failed experiment ages ago. The Drug War is now killing 100K a year. Doctor's supervision and pharmacy medicine would end it. Republicans stand in the way.
I'm a Republican from the Milton Friedman wing of the Party. "Socialism for Criminals." is what Milton called Drug Prohibition. Other Republicans actually support the killing (by neglect) of Americans (addicts) and Democrats can't find their voice? "Doubly sexually deviated? - we will protect you. Persecuted for your pain? You are on your own." Why is that? Why don't Democrats make a case for these women? I do daily or oftener and I'm a Fn Republican.: ==>
Dr. Lonny Shavelson in his book "Hooked" said that 70% of female heroin addicts had been sexually abused in childhood.
As I keep saying.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE?
Update: 26 September 2026 00:15z
Medical Fascism = declaring a medical condition (addiction) illegal.
Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon. I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).
All doctors know receptor science. Why do any believe drugs (opiates) cause addiction?
Receptor science (100+ years old) says there are NO addictive drugs. Drugs fill receptors. What empties those receptors (injury, PTSD) causes a desire for pain relieving drugs. Drugs CAN'T cause addiction. People take pain relievers to relieve pain. The "recreation" in Recreational Drugs is pain relief.
Supporting evidence ==> Dr. Lonny Shavelson in his book "Hooked" said that 70% of female heroin addicts had been sexually abused in childhood.
...rates of trauma exposure among adults with SUD (Substance Use Disorder) are estimated to be as high as 95% [2, 3]; and among those who report trauma exposure, the prevalence of SUD is three times higher than among non-exposed individuals [4]. Child abuse is often identified as a prominent risk factor for substance use [5,6,7].
Update: 12:00z 17 August 2025
What I have presented is a very simplified view of "Receptor Science" that covers the essentials of the pain reliever case. There is qiute a bit more going on than I have mentioned here. Habituation for instance. Also the body makes receptor fillers, makes receptors, prunes receptors, and empties receptors.
Update: 11:40z 21 August 2025
I asked my doctor to Show Me using Receptor Science, how Drugs Cause Addiction. Ask your doctor.
Update: 00:01z 27 August 2025
A look at Addiction Potential using Receptor Science.
Update: 12:35z 27 August 2025
Added - The "recreation" in Recreational Drugs is pain relief. -
Update: 12:02z 15 September 2025
One of the earliest blogs I did on the subject from 2004. Heroin.
Update: 0109z 30 September 2025
Medical Fascism = declaring a medical condition (addiction) illegal. That is a crime against humanity. The 1914 Republican Harrison Narcotics Act.
Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon. I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).
What scares the cartels the most is that America will stop fighting addictive drugs.
Receptor science (100+ years old) says there are NO addictive drugs. Drugs fill receptors. What empties those receptors (injury, PTSD) causes a desire for pain relieving drugs. Drugs CAN'T cause addiction. People take pain relievers to relieve pain.
Another American war based on lies. I hope we get tired of it. Real Soon.
The knowledge is over 100 years old. Why didn't somebody say something? The big pharma case about "addictive drugs" would have been a perfect case to bring this up.
Multiple states have reached a tentative new agreement with the Sackler family, who made billions of dollars marketing OxyContin, the drug that set off the U.S. opioid crisis.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that the Sackler family will pay up to $6.5 billion, while their privately held company, Purdue Pharma, will pay nearly $900 million.
If the deal goes through, the funds will go to the states, local governments, and individuals that have sued Purdue and the Sacklers. State and local governments have spent opioid settlement funds on addressing the harms caused by the opioid crisis.
The U.S. opioid crisis has killed tens of thousands of people each year for more than a decade. There were 81,083 opioid deaths in the U.S. in 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The "crisis" assumes drugs cause addiction and that any distribition of them through unauthorized channells or excessive distribution in aurhorized channels is a threat to the community.
The likely actual cause was an uptick in child abuse 15 or 20 years prior. Or it could be Service Connected. Dr. Lonny Shavelson in his book "Hooked" said that 70% of female heroin addicts had been sexually abused in childhood. We are making war on abused children and disabled vets.
You have to ask - why didn't a doctor or nurse object? Why didn't the Sackler family or Purdue Pharma object? They stood to save billions if drugs weren't the cause of the "opiod crisis".
Think of all the publications with doctors and nurses on staff. In 100+ years no one has contradicted "addictive drugs". Why? It will be a very interesting topic for discussion. I could have written "Receptor science....." 50 years ago if I had thought about it and I'm a layman relative to the subject. What actually happened is that I got a message, a voice in my head (the Head Office?? ;-), "Write something about drugs and receptors." About two weeks later I started on the subject with Proof - The Government Is Lying About DRUGS and finished about a week after that with Better Proof - The Government Is Lying About DRUGS.
Somebody ought to sidle up close to Doctor Rand Paul when convenient and ask the Senator what he knows about receptor science. Then give him the whole story and ask why he kept silent. Ask all of the rest of the doctors in Congress as well.
The closest we come to a direct statement on the subject other than mine is Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine Eric Kandel who says in his book, "The Disordered Mind" that addiction is a symptom of PTSD. Which is true but does not really cover the full scope of the evidence.
You want to know how entrenched the war is? No Publication, Left, Middle, Right, MSM, Alt. Media, anyone, has suggested ending it based on it being run on false premises.
Let me add. I notified all my anti-prohibition friends and publications some months back that drugs don't cause addiction. They ALL remain silent. Drug war profits must be good all around, eh?
Update: 8 August 2025 13:50z
PTSD can cause addiction. The PTSD from child abuse is especially prevalent when it comes to addiction. Receptor Science
Update: 0114z 30 September 2025
Medical Fascism = declaring a medical condition (addiction) illegal. That is a crime against humanity. The 1914 Republican Harrison Narcotics Act.
Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon. I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).
It is why Blacks are flocking to Trump. The Lawfare they are victims of is Nixon's War On Blacks - the Nixon Drug War. It is one of the last vestiges of systemic racism still functioning.
"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it."
- John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.
"[Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks" Haldeman, his Chief of Staff wrote, "The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to."
And now you know why persecuted Blacks are backing Trump. They have seen Lawfare up close and personal.
Trump will owe them. He has known their issue for over 30 years. The Drug War. He now has a reason in addition to his others to bring the people it finances down. And the backing to do it.
"We're losing badly the war on drugs," he said. "You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars." - Donald Trump at the Miami Herald 1990 Company of the Year Awards Luncheon
But things are even worse than that. "Drugs cause addiction" is a biologically false statement. Biologically drugs CAN'T cause addiction. A short discussion of the biology in simple layman's terms: Better Proof - The Government Is Lying About DRUGS
The tldr; version ==>
Drugs fill receptors.
Injury empties receptors. PTSD empties receptors.
Empty receptors are painful.
Filling empty receptors makes you feel good.
Empty receptors create a desire for drugs.
Drugs can not create a desire for drugs.
Think of all the Government Agencies dependent on the Drug War. It is very expensive.
Drugs fill receptors. What empties receptors (injury, PTSD) causes a desire for drugs. Drugs CAN'T cause addiction. Pass it on.
If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers. - Thomas Pynchon.
Update: 24 May 2024 10:56z
Systemic Racisn gets a mention starting at 53 seconds in to the video.
In this video Matt Fogg, a Black DEA agent, explains Drug War Racism policy. And yes. Racism is DEA policy. Matt does introductions for the first minute and a half of the video.
And you also have Joe Biden, the architect of the racist 1994 Crime Bill. People who prefered crack cocaine over powder (Blacks) got punished 100 times more. Congress later reduced that to only 18 times the punishment. Prison quotas need to be maintained.
Update: 25 May 2024 11:45z
I added - Drugs fill receptors. What empties receptors (injury, PTSD) causes a desire for drugs. Drugs CAN'T cause addiction. Pass it on.
Putting so many Black men in prison has ruined the Black family. Which was Nixon's intention. No fathers for Black kids. - 13:25z
I just posted (19 June 2024) - "Potential for Abuse" - about one way Drugs are classified.
Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon. I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).
The following discussion is for the endorphin system, whose receptors accept endorphins, opiates, and indirectly alcohol. However there are other routes to dopamine production. But the drugs we have the most trouble with are opiates and alcohol so to keep things simple I'll focus on those.
When it comes to the endorphin system the normal human condition is for the system to have some empty receptors. If the system has all full receptors it grows more. The DEA calls this growth of receptors "addiction". It is not. But we will get to that in a bit. The receptors in the endorphin system are called pain receptors because when enough receptors are empty you feel pain. But it is a continum from bliss - all receptors full, to extreme pain - all receptors empty. The normal human condition is some empty receptors - mild depression - so you can tell if something good happens. More receptors empy causes discomfort and depression. Do something! Then heavy depression. Then pain followed by screaming pain. Do something RIGHT NOW!!! Pain is a continum. And in that vein fillng an empty pain receptor reduces pain - even if it feels like something else (depression).
PTSD is a disorder that amonts to a continuous leak to the endorphin system. The initial trauma can last a lifetime and that means the receptor leak can be long lasting as well. What do people do who feel depressed? They look for relief. People in chronic pain (empty receptors) chronically take pain relievers (opiates, alcohol). Addiction is not caused by drugs. It is caused by pain. What is caused by drugs is Habituation. If you keep your receptors full by continuous drug taking your body will grow more. But that takes weeks and months. Empty receptors is much faster: milliseconds to minutes for the initial trauma and then hours, days, or weeks for the PTSD leak to have an effect. I do have an example.
Drugs fill receptors.
Injury empties receptors. PTSD empties receptors.
Empty receptors are painful.
Filling empty receptors makes you feel good.
Empty receptors create a desire for drugs.
Drugs can not create a desire for drugs.
In America we have a pain problem. A problem with long term pain (PTSD). A problem with child abuse. A problem with soldier and civilian trauma (PTSD). We don't have a Drug problem. That, like Alcohol Prohibition, is a Government caused problem. Denying pain relief is not viable politically or socially or even morally. People will go to great lenghts including defying government to get pain relief.
Other drugs of abuse seem to work similarly but have different pathways. They all affect the dopamine system ultimately.
A better popular understanding of the biology will help end the war on people in pain. Please pass this around. Help end the persecutions.
Update: 28 February 2025 - 1046z
Drugs CAN'T cause addiction. They can cause Habituation. You have to take them for a while to get the effect.
Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon. I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).
Abused child PTSD causes narcissism and displaced rage - the "issues" are not
the issue. It is a mental illness. Hitler was an abused child. Marx was an
abused child. Stalin was an abused child. Putin is an abused child. Their rage from the abuse destroys their morals. The anger is the disease.
Some abused children crave power and control, which is why there are so many in politics. We
are not confronting a political party or a political philosphy, despite there
being so many bad ones. We are facing a mental illness. Abused child PTSD
and the associated displaced rage and narcissism.
Drug abuse and sexual deviance are other possible side effects. Medical schools in America teach - addiction is
a symptom of PTSD. Marx had a drug problem. Hitler was a secret addict.
"Inside Every Progressive Is An Abused Child Screaming To Get Out" - at one time I was both.
From my own personal experience - every gang member I knew, when I was in one, was an abused child.
No one in criminal justice ever remarks on that. Some of them must know.
Long term PTSD (everyone gets it short term) is in part genetic. The other part is the initiating trauma.
Me? I'm no longer an abused child, haven't been for about 50 years, I gave up my anger.
Should you have the problem the simplest advice I can give is ==> The Anger IS
the Disease.
"The Fourth Way" by P.D. Ouspensky helped me a lot. You can
probably skip all the 'magical universes' stuff and stick to the healing
recipes. One of which is "Do Not Express Negative Emotions" because it
reinforces them and you don't want them anymore. That Hitler guy was full of
them.
Update: 8 August 2025 13:39z
PTSD can induce drug abuse. Receptor Science.
Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases
through this link:
Amazon.
I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance
items (like printer cartridges).
Who would you rather have for neighbors?
pot heads
pill heads
alcoholics
puritan witch-hunting nutjobs
Which echos Robert Heinlein:
“Political tags–such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
Evidently, our Drug Warriors, stung by a lack of success, have decided to throw in their lot with the ATF in order to drum up support for a bigger drug war.
The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration has admitted that the agency knew about and played a role in "Operation Fast and Furious," a botched gunrunning program that allowed more than 2,000 firearms to "walk" across the border into Mexico.
In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight, obtained by the LA Times, DEA administrator Michele Leonhart wrote that DEA agents in Phoenix and El Paso were "indirectly involved" in the Fast and Furious operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The letter states that the DEA had no "decision-making role" in Fast and Furious.
Leonhart's letter marks the first time another law enforcement agency, other than the ATF, has acknowledged working on Fast and Furious.
I have been saying something in my e-mails, but I haven't said much in public. Let me correct that:
Drug Prohibition is a stalking horse for Gun Prohibition.
I have been saying that in other words for quite a while. See a couple of my more recent posts:
Today I thought I'd make it explicit. I also want to ask a question: "Why is the gun rights community so silent about one of the chief threats to their rights: The Drug War?"
It is not just the fecklessness of the pols that is ruining the country. It is also the silence of the masses (specifically gun owners in this case). We are getting the government we deserve with all the corruption and murdering that goes with any prohibition regime.
The idea itself goes a way back in psychedelic history when LSD was used by Dr Humphry Osmond to treat alcoholism. And alcoholism is a symptom of PTSD. Sometimes. Sometimes it is a symptom of something else. In any case the treatment of PTSD with psychedelics is gaining ground.
Let's say an abuse-ridden childhood has left you with PTSD that sparks panic whenever you hear shouts, even on TV. Or let's say a bad accident has saddled you with crippling anxiety and chronic pain. Now let's say that you could ease -- or even cure -- these woes with prescription psiloscybin.
Prescription ecstasy. Prescription LSD.
If a growing phalanx of scientists get their way, those prescriptions could be yours within 10 years. Research into the medical benefits of psychedelic drugs is booming. An April conference on the subject at Great Britain's University of Kent featured lectures on such topics as "Ketamine Psychotherapy" and "Ayahuasca in the Contemporary World."
Leading this wave is the Boston-based Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), whose executive director Rick Doblin spoke at that conference. MAPS researchers have spent 15 years conducting international clinical trials whose results indicate that LSD and psilocybin counteract depression and anxiety and are effective pain-management tools while MDMA (ecstasy) conquers fear. Just this month, the Israeli Ministry of Health approved a new MAPS study using MDMA to treat PTSD.
It just frosts me that the War On Drugs has stymied this research for at least 3 decades. I think of all the Veterans this could have helped. Not to mention victims of child abuse.
When the Drug War goes down it is going to take a LOT of smug *holes down with it. You know, the "save the children and f* the adults crowd". If only they went after child abuse with the same vigor they went after drugs we wouldn't need a Drug War. Of course I would council that the Government stay out of it all and let the people solve their own problems. But that would make me a radical. A George Washington or perhaps Thomas Jefferson type. Of course George had to deal with a Whiskey Rebellion. So maybe government interference with the use of mind altering drugs is not exactly new. Although the government of that time was smart enough to avoid banning alcohol altogether. That effort was saved for a later band of geniuses who appear to be informing the current band of geniuses on the usefulness of Drug Prohibition.
By now everyone has one or is repeating someone else's Charlie Sheen story. I have my own.
The first mate was telling me yesterday how lucky Charlie was to have two ladies. I told her that those girls were far too young and besides if something like that ever happened to me I'd insist that she be one of the ladies.
Big hug and kiss from the mate for me. God I love that girl.
Of course every woman has a different preferred answer to the question. So it pays to know your mate.
If you give the wrong answer you could wind up in bad trouble the least of which is sleeping alone for a month. So be careful out there.
So what can a father do to improve the odds that his daughter doesn't join the ranks of the sluts? This site has a chart which I'm going to repeat below that answers the question.
In words: Make sure your daughter goes into something chemistry or mathematics. The worst is art major. My #1 daughter is a chemical engineering major.
Now why would it work like that? You can get a hint here: Demographics. The short version? It depends on the M/F ratio in the classes.
In a peripheral discussion at the Belmont Club the subject of drugs and politics came up. Which prompted a few thoughts. Here they are revised and extended.
==
The proper way to look at it:
Addicted to drugs = person in pain.
Looked at that way a lot of what goes on becomes more comprehensible.
I believe left/right is more about intolerance/tolerance for pain than any kind of political theory. i.e. how do you feel about the suffering of others/yourself. And it has nothing to do with drug use (although that can be an indicator of the level of pain) Bomber Joe was an opiate addict. And Halsted.
The left likes pain free utopias (why should anyone suffer?). The right likes painful ones (how else can you learn?). A middle way would be nice.
Bob Ramsey who has some interesting links on this page suggested I have a look at a book excerpt which explains why supply interdiction in the Drug War is an impossible task. Not just difficult. Not just expensive. Impossible. It is an excerpt from a book published in 1991:
So let me fill you in on some interesting facts from the text. Keep in mind that the dollars mentioned are 1991 dollars.
Much of the earth's surface is suitable for growing and processing psychoactive plants, the raw materials for drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Only a trivial fraction of this area is needed to produce the flood of drugs now coming into America. Even if we could wipe out all of today's sources of supply, a virtually inexhaustible set of alternative suppliers would remain. Many of the people who inhabit the primary producing areas, including South America and Asia, face starvation if they spurn the drug trade, and death at the hands of traffickers if they try to stop the trade. No credible threat or inducement will convince foreign growers and processors to give up their livelihood. Once produced, the drugs can enter America by any number of methods, across any of thousands of miles of open borders, and our efforts to stop smugglers serve chiefly to drive up the profits of those who succeed. Short of employing our entire armed services as a domestic drug militia, there is no feasible way to prevent drugs from entering the country. Even here in America, in locations ranging from national forests to bedroom "grow closets" and basement laboratories, psychoactives can be grown or concocted in quantities sufficient to satisfy the most demanding drug appetites. Thus, even if we somehow stopped the flood of foreign drugs, domestic producers stand ready, willing, and able to jump into the breach.
The bottom line is short and simple. In attempting to eliminate the world supply of drugs, the federal government has been building sand castles against the incoming tide. Despite occasional fleeting satisfactions, in the long run there is no realistic chance of success. If we are to undo drugs, we shall have to look elsewhere.
Expensive sand castles. And they get taxpayers to pay for the privilege. Doesn't it just give you the warm fuzzies to know you get to pay through the nose (heh) for someone else's hobby?
Well you don't really know anything if you haven't got the numbahs. So how about some facts and figures about agriculture.
The marijuana plant (Cannabis sativa) is one of nature's ultimate survivors. Quite literally, it grows like a weed, flourishing in the wild on every continent except Antarctica. Left untended, the plant reaches a height of up to fifteen feet within a few months, at which point its crop of leaves and buds is worth $500. Pruned, watered, and fertilized regularly, a single pampered plant can fetch $2,500, Marijuana will grow high on mountainsides, on open plains, and in dense forests. It thrives in pots hung from and hidden among the branches of trees, or can be trained to grow close to the ground in the midst of other, legal crops. Moreover, with less than $100 worth of equipment, an individual can produce a thriving crop year after year in his or her own closet or basement.
Roughly 75 percent of the marijuana consumed by Americans is imported, chiefly from Central and South America, although domestic production is expanding rapidly [3] The leading producer states are California, Oregon, Kentucky, and Hawaii, but the legal authorities have confiscated plants from Alaska to Florida, and from Maine to Arizona. Cannabis is a plant for all seasons and every locale.
Despite the diversity of conditions under which the principal psychoactive crops will grow, remarkably little arable land is presently devoted to their cultivation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that more than 2.5 million square miles in South America alone are suitable for growing coca, yet less than 1,000 square miles (less than 0.04 percent) is currently used for that purpose. [4] Elsewhere in the world, the combined land area suitable for coca exceeds the amount available in South America, and yet almost none of it is now under commercial coca cultivation. If coca eradication attempts had any appreciable success in causing supply disruptions, vast tracts of land could rapidly be cultivated as a source of supply.
Most of the 4,000 metric tons of marijuana produced in the United States each year is grown in only a dozen or so counties scattered across the principal producing states, and total U.S. production represents a trivial fraction of worldwide marijuana output.[5] And since marijuana cultivation is eminently suitable for commercial cultivation indoors as well as outdoors, one must realistically view the entire surface of the earth as a potential source of supply.
The link above has facts and figures on other drugs. I thought excerpting the relevant info on pot (California's largest agricultural crop in terms of dollars) would interest more people since the number of pot consumers in America runs between 5% (15 million people) and 15% (45 million people) of the US population. The numbers are fuzzy because taking good surveys about illegal behavior is a difficult proposition.
So how about drug smuggling? Stopping growing is impossible. Maybe we can keep the stuff (the fraction that is not home grown) from crossing the border. Well how about a little musical interlude?
Well don't that get your adrenaline pumping? And how about an adrenaline pumping story?
Who is more motivated - a drug trafficker, or the enforcement agent trying to stop him? A drug smuggler, describing the duels between drug runners and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in fast boats along the Florida coast, gave this answer:
There are places [along the coast] where the water is two feet deep and less, and the channels that you have to use are unmarked. Now, a good doper knows those channels because he studies them. He's also making ten, twelve, fifteen thousand dollars - it depends on the load - for four hours' work, and for that kind of money he is expected to take the risk of getting it wrong. The guy chasing him is making maybe a hundred bucks for a shift, on which he is going to pay tax, and if he hits that sandbank at sixty miles an hour he isn't going to collect his pension because he's going to be dead. Now, you're in the Customs boat heading for the sandbank: Which way do you want to push the throttle?[30]
This simple story helps illustrate why both innovation and adaptation in the drug wars so often favor the bad guys. For drug dealers, the rewards of developing new ways of bringing drugs to market (or of adapting to the latest methods of the drug warriors) are enormous, compelling enough for them to risk prison terms or death, or to murder anyone who stands in their way.
Compare this with the incentives facing law-enforcement officials, who are paid whether they catch the dealers or not. Quite simply, the drug warriors have little economic stake in the success or failure of their efforts, and equally little incentive to risk life and limb. Certainly, some may get publicity, and others may even get salary increases; but these are small compensations for risking their lives. Because their expected rewards - huge profits - are so much greater, drug dealers are willing to face a far greater risk of violent death than are drug-enforcement agents, and they are more willing and able to innovate and adapt as well. The common notion that drug warriors are a group of dedicated individuals constantly thinking up ways to outsmart the bad guys surely has an element of truth to it, but by and large, it is the bad guys who spend their time trying to figure out ways to outsmart the good guys. It is the drug dealers who are constantly seeking new products and delivery systems to give them a competitive edge, and it is the dealers who adapt the most quickly to changing conditions, because the bad guys - the dealers - have greater incentives to do so. The rate of innovation and adaptation in the drug-enforcement agencies is much slower than it is within the drug trafficking business, simply because the rewards are structured to make it so.
Of course we can change the reward structure easily enough. We can do it the same way we solved the crime problem associated with alcohol. End prohibition.
There is WAY MORE at the link. Read the whole thing. And weep.
The Government has scored another drug war success. Homeless people are now supplying meth precursors to underground drug labs.
At the height of the methamphetamine epidemic, several states turned to a new weapon to disrupt the drug trade: electronic systems that could track sales of the cold medicine used to make meth.
Tracking sales by computer allowed pharmacies to check instantly whether a buyer had already purchased the legal limit of pseudoephedrine — a step that was supposed to make it harder to obtain raw ingredients for meth.
But an Associated Press analysis of federal data reveals that the practice has not only failed to curb the meth trade, which is growing again after a brief decline. It also created a vast and highly lucrative market for profiteers to buy over-the-counter pills and sell them to meth producers at a huge markup.
In just a few years, the lure of such easy money has drawn thousands of new people into the methamphetamine underworld.
"It's almost like a sub-criminal culture," said Gary Boggs, an agent at the Drug Enforcement Administration. "You'll see them with a GPS unit set up in a van with a list of every single pharmacy or retail outlet. They'll spend the entire week going store to store and buy to the limit."
Inside their vehicles, the so-called "pill brokers" punch out blister packs into a bucket and even clip coupons, Boggs said.
In some cases, the pill buyers are not interested in meth. They may be homeless people recruited off the street or even college kids seeking weekend beer money, authorities say.
But because of booming demand created in large part by the tracking systems, they can buy a box of pills for $7 to $8 and sell it for $40 or $50.
The tracking systems "invite more people into the criminal activity because the black market price of the product becomes so much more profitable," said Jason Grellner, a detective in hard-hit Franklin County, Mo., about 40 miles west of St. Louis.
You would think that the people writing the laws have never heard of supply and demand.
But it is the same story ever since we declared War On Some Drugs in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics act. Politicians write new laws. And the market adjusts until supply meets demand at the supply/demand equilibrium price.
You would think that the people writing the laws could figure out some way to fix what needs fixing without setting up price supports for criminals. You would be wrong. Drug user are smarter. And their suppliers are continually outsmarting the enforcers. Politicians and those who support their anti-drug ventures are dumb as a box of hammers. Like Wily Coyote they keep getting fooled by the same tricks and yet keep repeating their failed strategies. I wonder if the problem is genetic? Or maybe it is a matter of incentives. Politicians keep promising the impossible ("We can curb human appetites by passing laws.") and the voters keep voting for them. I guess the continual dog and pony shows - the piles of drugs, guns, and money trotted out every time the prohibition agencies are looking for funds are enough to fool most of the people marks most of the time.
What is striking to me is that leftists who normally can't evaluate the economics of almost any situation can do an exquisite analysis of drug prohibition and those on the right who are normally excellent at economic analysis are suddenly idiots when it comes to drugs. Proof positive I guess that drugs make people stupid. Especially people who don't use them.
According to Psychology Today, people who use more drugs are more intelligent. "Intelligent people don't always do the right thing," they write, "only the evolutionarily novel thing."
According to a study conducted by National Child Development, "more intelligent children in the United Kingdom are more likely to grow up to consume psychoactive drugs than less intelligent children." These drugs include marijuana, cocaine, heroin, alcohol and tobacco.
The chart on the left shows the findings of the study. It depicts the latent factor for the consumption of 13 different kinds of psychoactive drugs, (cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, LSD, amyl nitrate, magic mushrooms, cocaine, temazepan, semeron, ketamine, crack, heroin, and methadone). There is a clear association between childhood general intelligence and adult drug consumption.
My theory is a little different. The brain conditions that give a propensity to drug use also give a propensity to intelligence.
In any case this is so totally hilarious and unexpected that it is going to blow minds. The stereotype of the stupid drug user is just plain wrong. Why might that be? Let us think: only the stupid drug users get caught. The smart ones are getting away with it and the smart ones predominate.
The stupid shits are the ones supporting drug prohibition. This is just funny as hell. It reminds me of the old joke "Drugs make people stupid. Especially the people who don't use them."
So was this true in the US?
"Very bright individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than very dull individuals," says Psychology Today. They ran the same study in the U.S. and found similar results.
I can see an explosion of illegal drug use coming if the word on this gets out as everyone tries to prove they are smarter than average.
It is true beyond a doubt that stupid people are running the drug war and smart people are against it. Why stupid? We in the US pay $70 billion a year (according to this video) to make criminals richer and to make it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer. How stupid do you have to be to support that? Dumber than a box of rocks.
The smarter police are catching on. Check these guys out:
I got the video from Reason Magazine via Instapundit. What is interesting is that two of his three key markers for psychopathy are: genetics and trauma or abuse. Those are the two markers that I have been saying for years are the cause of chronic drug use.
You can follow my trail some by reading these articles in order.
Now does this particular information prove my point? Of course not. I do think it means I'm on the right track and some further exploration is in order.
Mexico has legalized personal use of all kinds of currently illegal drugs.
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico enacted a controversial law on Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging government-financed treatment for drug dependency free of charge.
The law sets out maximum “personal use” amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution; the law goes into effect on Friday.
Let me point out that such a law will do nothing to limit the reach of the drug cartels. In America under Alcohol Prohibition, alcohol consumption was legal. Its manufacture and distribution were not. All Mexico has done is legalize demand while doing nothing to legalize supply. The supply chain murders will continue.
A doctor gives advice to children and parents about drug use. One bit of advice I especially liked, "Assume drugs are everywhere." I guess the prohibition thing is not working out.
It is about a minute with English subtitles. The Jerusalem Post explains how this came to be.
The Green Leaf Graduates, which split from the political party Aleh Yarok, best known for its advocacy of the legalization of cannabis, is making waves with its most recent announcement: a plan to incorporate the Holocaust Survivors Party.
It looks like they have done that. At least as far as the video is concerned.
Yaakov Kfir, the party's leader, said he joined forces with the Green Leaf Graduates to attract more attention to the survivors' cause.
"The fact that I am interviewed by so many media outlets indicates that the decision to hook up with the Aleh Yarok graduates was smarter than if I had chosen to go with a larger, more solid party," Kfir said on Wednesday.
Politics makes strage bedfellows as a spokeswoman for the Green Leaf party explains.
Michelle Levine, a spokeswoman for the Green Leaf Graduates, voiced strong support for Kfir's cause. She described the government's failure to address the concerns of Holocaust survivors as a "national disgrace" and hoped that younger voters drawn to the party would be given additional incentive to vote in order to support the survivors' cause.
"People who would vote for the survivors right now are all older. [The survivors' party] wants to get younger people involved, like the Pensioners Party did before," said Levine, referring to the Gil Party's surprising 2006 success, which was fueled largely by disillusioned young voters.
She was forthright about the Green Leaf Graduates' intention to use support for the survivors' cause to further its own agenda of legalizing marijuana and said that the survivors had no problem with the issue.
"They say to us that at their age they don't see why [marijuana] is an issue," she continued. "They don't consider it drugs. They even have friends who have cancer or something who are ashamed to ask for a prescription. Easier access to medical marijuana is something we're fighting for."
You know. I think the boomer generation is going to give a big push to the legalization efforts in America. When the infirmities of old age start setting in, making relaxation a puff away is going to sound pretty darned good.
According to FTC regulations I am required to disclose any material benefit I receive from any blog post.
OK.
I get paid from Amazon if you order from any of the links provided. I will give you an honest opinion of any products I have ordered if I blog about them.
If you don't trust me read the Amazon reviews. If there is no review you are on your own.
If you pay me enough and promise to cover my lawyers fees I may say something nice about you. Or I may not. Enough is generally more than you can afford. Unless you have a a really really big bank account or more that a few large gold bars under the mattress.
If you do pay I expect to be transported to a country with no extradition treaty with the US.
If I review a book it may be because the author or publisher sent me a review copy. Other wise I will quote a review of some one else. If I say a product looks interesting it is because it interests me. Sometimes I will link to books so you can educate yourself on a subject and so I can make some off the sale.
If some one employs me I will probably say good things about them as long as the money keeps coming. Or I may say nothing. To keep out of trouble with their lawyers.
That covers most of what I can think of. I'm getting old and sometimes I don't think of everything.
And if you have read this far please Buy Something From Amazon. I can use the money - well actually I will use the proceeds to buy something from Amazon. I get a better deal that way.
Posts
