tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467914976455886147.post7501927923411743229..comments2023-10-20T07:04:59.544-07:00Comments on Get a Grip!: Time For A Change--Declare DefeatHistory Geekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10232428492441441374noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467914976455886147.post-83976690634949455522008-11-07T10:31:00.000-08:002008-11-07T10:31:00.000-08:00The Geek always appreciates and enjoys your though...The Geek always appreciates and enjoys your thoughtful, well written comments, even when we are in disagreement. You add much to the totality of addressing complex issues. <BR/><BR/>(The Geek calls them issues and not problems as they are often far more susceptible to being talked to death rather than being solved by thoughtful action.)<BR/><BR/>On declaring defeat in the already lost war on drugs, the Geek did not mean to imply an "anything goes" approach. Some drugs are demonstrably far worse in their personal and societal effects than others. From the experience of history, if the less harmful but still desirable drugs are available most potential users will opt for the former. The Geek believes this tendency will be enhanced with the availability of accurate information rather than "this is your brain on drugs" propaganda.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that the Geek is of the view that society has the right and the obligation to continue prohibition on the most disastrous drugs such as crack and PCP. That coupled with accurate information and most importantly the availability of desirable less harmful substances will have the overall effect of limiting the damage of the drug war while protecting legitimate interests of society.<BR/><BR/>The Geek suggests that life is risky and no matter how much many may whine about the failure of institutions to protect absolutely against all risks--including elevated costs of medical care because other people do stupid things or hikes in auto insurance because there are so many idiots on the road--risks will continue and have to be accepted as an inevitable consequence of being alive.<BR/><BR/>While the Geek is all in favor of reducing risk in a rational manner,he has concluded from history (personal as well as vicarious) that allowing individuals to live their lives free of the nanny state's well intentioned(?) interference. Beyond that the Geek views the nanny state's enveloping presence protects not the individual from himself but the aggregation of power to the state and statists.<BR/><BR/>The "war on drugs" has been an excellent example of this contention. Frankly, much as the Geek is concerned about war and foreign policy, etc, the impact of the progressive interventionist agenda on the quality of domestic life and the relation between individual and state has been the area most evil effect.<BR/><BR/>(And, the dependence of the state on bogus wars to legitimise and facilitate the aggregation of yet more direct power over the individual is the ultimate reason why the "War on Drugs" will not be ended.)<BR/><BR/>Your over and unders are, to use a British expression, "quite the poser." But, the Geek may well take up your challenge(s) secure in his belief that you have already worked out answers you find both satisfactory and readily arguable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467914976455886147.post-24535832311621118152008-11-06T21:03:00.000-08:002008-11-06T21:03:00.000-08:00Geek, having had the opportunity to deal (in the r...Geek, having had the opportunity to deal (in the recent past) with issues in the war of drugs (complements of an 18 month term on a federal grand jury). I'm not ready to just sign off and say "no harm, no foul" regarding the war on drugs.<BR/><BR/>I certainly don't like today's solution (which isn't one, and a winner, it's not), but going wide open the other way with an "anything goes" attitude certainly isn't going to be acceptable - it's just not going to sell in the political marketplace.<BR/><BR/>For example, I have a really serious problem with all the health care costs associated with illegal drug use. I mean, if you are going to make it legal, or at least remove the incarceration penalties, put money on the fact that society in general will demand (among other things) that emergency health care for drug addicts be provide on a tiered basis, with cases where drug use leads to hospital emergency visits are handled on a much lower priority basis, if a priority basis at all. If they live fine, if they die fine.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm not sure how you accomplish that, but the first couple of times where heavy drug use (which was previously illegal) leads to those individuals getting emergency care ahead of non-drug use patients, and this leads to bad outcomes for the non-drug use patients, well, it's going to be an issue that will end up making the entire abortion rights mess look like a walk in the park by comparison. Now, throw that one into the whole health-care debate.<BR/><BR/>You know, we just went through a national election where a major issue (still up for debate, and not nearly resolved) was over the increasing application of additional 'penalties' (taxes, etc.) to the most successful within our society.<BR/><BR/>Well, if that's the case, with drug use, we're probably going to have to apply the same logic, only in reverse to individuals with heavy drug use. Honestly, why should I (or you), or our non drug using family members have to carry the additional burden of such erratic drug-impaired performers in the marketplace? My days of being charitable in such an environment are long past if all I'm doing is rewarding more recreational drug use.<BR/><BR/>On a different topic, what do you see as the Over/Under spread on the varied and different campaign promises of "The Anointed One".<BR/><BR/>Couple of issues to think about:<BR/><BR/>1) Over [more likely]/Under [less likely] on:<BR/><BR/>(a) Iran extends invite to Obama, and Obama visits Iran within first year in office.<BR/>(b) Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the UN, and Obama arranges to meets with him within first 6 months in office.<BR/>(c) No SOFA with Iraq by 01.2009, and within first 60 days in office, POTUS issues orders to within all US forces from Iraq within 16 months.<BR/>(d) The DJI (DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE), starting from 11.04.2008 drops down to below 7400 by 01.20.2009<BR/>(e) Nationwide unemployment rises to 8.1%/8.3% levels by 09.30.2009<BR/>(f) Where will the biggest foreign affairs 'surprise' come from within the first 9 months in the new term (after 01.19.2009):<BR/>(f.1) Venezuela/Columbia<BR/>(f.2) Mexico/out-of-control violence)<BR/>(f.3) Bolivia/Separatist/Argentina movement<BR/>(f.4) Russia and.... (specify, plenty of choices)<BR/>(f.5) Horn of Africa<BR/>(f.6) Central Africa<BR/>(f.7) SE Asia (Vietnam, PRC, Japan, both Koreas, pick your poison)<BR/>(f.8) EU<BR/>(f.9) ME<BR/>(f.10) Iran and.... (specify, again, plenty of choices).<BR/><BR/>What do you think about the above as a topic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com