Comments on: The Dude Abides

By: W. Kiernan

W. Kiernan — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:05:37 +0000

Eric: I’ve read one after another of your far-out blanket statements about drugs – take heroin, which is legal in Italy, even once and you will become physically and mentally addicted, several years after ingesting LSD one is apt to suddenly start seeing paisley everywhere and swerve the car up onto the sidewalk, and so on. Out here in the real world, have you ever taken marijuana, or LSD, or opiates, or cocaine? Did you ever know any users of these drugs personally? Because for a person like me with a bit of real-world experience with these illegal drugs, your stuff has the same tone of outre surreality as some of those War-on-Terrorists we’ve all read, who tell us how all of the Moslems in the world are semi-literate red-eyed terrorists every one, who live in tents and spend their days riding camels to and fro across the orange dunes, incessantly howling “Allahu Akbar” and waving their AKs in the air, etc., etc. Meanwhile anybody who’s ever known Moslems in the real world bats his head and says, “Why do I have to listen to this rubbish?” Drug policy is a debatable issue, and a complex one; that public policy ought to deal with drugs as a whole rather than on a drug-by-drug basis makes as little sense as regulating all green things – broccoli, absinthe, iguanas, hand grenades – exactly the same way. But reciting volumes of obvious absurdities doesn’t contribute anything to that debate. Do you seriously believe that a guy who took LSD in 1998 is a likely traffic hazard today, and that thanks to lax laws Amsterdam is a more dangerous city than, say, Tampa, or do you think that if you post such a huge volume of nonsense that your opponents resign in exhaustion, that means you’ve won an argument?

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:41:05 +0000

Addiction does not just affect one’s own bodies, but society as a whole. Right, because you say it does. QED. I surrender, Eric.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:00:58 +0000

If you can’t see a fundamental distinction between drug use and child pornography, there’s no wonder this discussion keeps going around in circles. If that is beyond your grasp, then the whole discussion is fruitless. So clearly…

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:56:41 +0000

My example is mearly meant to highlight the train of though that legalization takes you down. It’s the same train of though that we must provide for the addict not attempt to reform them. Why do you believe it’s in society’s interest to “punish” people for what they do to their own bodies, assuming there’s no harm done to anyone other than the user? But that’s a lie. Addiction does not just affect one’s own bodies, but society as a whole. If that is beyond your grasp, then the whole discussion is fruitless.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:27:21 +0000

Why don’t we just legalize and regulate child pornography since the blackmarket trade is where most of the “crime” is commited and hram done, not with the end users? [...] It’s the same argument. It most certainly is not. If you can’t see a fundamental distinction between drug use and child pornography, there’s no wonder this discussion keeps going around in circles. Why when it comes to drugs do we believe that the criminal addict needs to be coddled rather than punished. Why do you believe it’s in society’s interest to “punish” people for what they do to their own bodies, assuming there’s no harm done to anyone other than the user?

By: Luc

Luc — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:31:52 +0000

WALTER: This was a valued rug. This was, uh— DUDE: Yeah man, it really tied the room together— WALTER: This was a valued, uh. DONNY: What tied the room together, Dude? WALTER: Were you listening to the story, Donny? DONNY: What— WALTER: Were you listening to the Dude’s story? DONNY: I was bowling— WALTER: So you have no frame of reference, Donny. You’re like a child who wanders in in the middle of a movie and wants to know— DUDE: What’s your point, Walter? WALTER: There’s no fucking reason—here’s my point, Dude—there’s no fucking reason— DONNY: Yeah Walter, what’s your point? WALTER: Huh? DUDE: What’s the point of—we all know who was at fault, so what the fuck are you talking about? WALTER: Huh? No! What the fuck are you talking—I’m not—we’re talking about unchecked aggression here— DONNY: What the fuck is he talking about? DUDE: My rug.

Let’s go bowling!

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:36:46 +0000

There will always be substances that are illegal. Why don’t we just legalize and regulate child pornography since the blackmarket trade is where most of the “crime” is commited and hram done, not with the end users? We can supply pedophiles with access to clean regulated and taxed child porn so the black market will collapse and pedophiles will not have to go out and abuse children anymore. What a load of crap. It’s the same argument. Why when it comes to drugs do we believe that the criminal addict needs to be coddled rather than punished. The parallel I was making with booze is that we already have a huge problem with one or two legalized mind-altering, addictive substances and you want to further expand the quantity and the quality of access to much stronger drugs and narcotics. I’m not saying that the government should not help addicts kick the habit, but to give them a never ending suply of the substance that they are addicted to is crazy. You don’t give a recovering alcoholic a beer, why should we supply heroin junkies with a fix?

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:03:13 +0000

For the umpteenth time, nobody is saying that addiction is anything other than bad, nor that people shouldn’t be responsible for their actions. What we are saying is that the consequences of addiction, for the user and for society at large, are far, far worse when the addictive substance is illegal. Even if addiction rates increase with legalisation, which is extremely debatable, the harmful social consequences are drastically reduced. The whole point about addiction is that it’s such a powerful behavioural influence that laws do almost nothing to control addicts’ behaviour. If addicts run out of money, they don’t stop using, they steal. That’s the point of prescribing heroin. The proportion of criminal drug users who are heroin addicts is pretty much irrelevant. The relevant statistic, surely, is the proportion of criminals who are drug (or heroin) users, and the overall crime rate. To give a manufactured and simplified example, imagine in a given town with a population of 10000 and legalised heroin 100 crimes are committed. 30 of those crimes are committed by drug addicts, of which 24 are heroin addicts. That’s an 80% drug criminal rate for heroin. Tell me, is that better or worse than a town of the same size, where 200 crimes are committed, of which 150 are caused by drug addicts, 75 of them on heroin? Because that’s only a 50% drug criminal rate for heroin. Similarly with disease – if hygeinic syringes and/or uncontaminated narcotics are not available, addicts don’t usually pass on the fix. No amount of laws will change that. Prohibition means you have a significant number of people, hundreds of thousands, at risk of infection and likely to steal to support their habit, and also likely to use force in the process of stealing, as well as an incredibly profitable black market which encourages a limitless supply of dealers and vicious turf wars. No amount of moralising will change that – it’s just a fact of life. If you’re willing to stomach all that social harm for the sake of punishing people for irresponsible pleasure seeking, then that’s your right, but it’s my right to call you callous and uninterested in reducing crime. Finally, your arguments regarding alcohol are utterly incoherent. It’s not about the government ‘allowing one potentially dangerous substance’ but not another. It’s about what happened when the government tried to ban alcohol.

By: ajay

ajay — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:49:06 +0000

Oh don’t be ridiculous. It wasn’t the draconian measures that were the problem. It was the very real debilitating effects of epidemic opium addiction on Chinese society. Your refusal to acknowledge the very real sufferring caused by this wave of addiction is simply bizarre. Assertion/= proof. As I said in the very next sentence of my post, the more reasonable conclusion is “whatever went wrong with China, it probably wasn’t unfettered access to opium.” I suggested later on that high opium use might be a consequence, rather than a cause, of the problems in Chinese society; much as, say, widespread alcohol abuse is a consequence rather than a cause of the near-collapse of the economy of post-Soviet Russia. From my limited knowledge I would hazard a guess that a restrictive, corrupt, inefficient and tyrannical government in Peking had a lot to do with it. In other words, it was indeed the draconian measures – against opium use and against everything else of which Peking disapproved – that were the problem. Note that the same period also saw repeated revolts against the government, including the Taiping Rebellion, the bloodiest civil war in history, which were not caused by heavy opium use; it also, of course, terminated with the 1911 Revolution. And, Eric, your logic needs work. “I don’t see where a prohibition policy is wrong. I think people should be personally accountable for thier illegal actions”… honestly. Let me rephrase you: “Punishing drug offences is good because people should be punished for doing illegal things. So legalisation is bad because, if drugs were legal, people would no longer be punished for drug offences.”

By: Luc

Luc — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:11:26 +0000

It seems incredible… don’t answer the questions posed by legalization, just continue to shoot the messenger. You’re a bit more than a messenger here. You’re acting like an evangelist. Try explaining why marijuana use is bigger in Vermont than in Amsterdam, where it is available legally? No more dealers hanging around schools, clear cut separation of marijuana and other drugs, lots of advantages around. It can work, legalisation. That it may not always work might be true, but not entirely relevant for those that think it will work here and now. Besides you quote some funny statistics: As a result of these treaties, the world’s total legal heroin production plummeted from its peak of nine thousand kilograms (I kilo = 2.2 pounds) in 1926 to little more than one thousand kilos in 1931. (16) In 1999 Afghanistan alone produced 4600000 kilos (4600 tons) of that stuff. This year it is said that they’re back at that level. Today is a different world than 1926.

By: eric

eric — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:07:47 +0000

It seems incredible… don’t answer the questions posed by legalization, just continue to shoot the messenger. Why don’t we take a page from history and see how america did in that wonderful time before heroin was made illegal. http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/03.htm Unrestricted distribution by physicians and pharmacies created an enormous drug abuse problem; in 1924 federal narcotics officials estimated that there were 200,000 addicts in the United States, (13) and the deputy police commissioner of New York reported that 94 percent of all drug addicts arrested for various crimes were heroin users.(14) The growing dimensions of heroin addiction finally convinced authorities that heroin’s liabilities outweighed its medical merits, and in 1924 both houses of Congress unanimously passed legislation outlawing the import or manufacture of heroin.(15) After a quarter century of monumental heroin abuse, the international medical community finally recognized the dangers of unrestricted heroin use, and the League of Nations began to regulate and reduce the legal manufacture of heroin. The Geneva Convention of 1925 imposed a set of strict regulations on the manufacture and export of heroin, and the Limitation Convention of 1931 stipulated that manufacturers could only produce enough heroin to meet legitimate “medical and scientific needs.” As a result of these treaties, the world’s total legal heroin production plummeted from its peak of nine thousand kilograms (I kilo = 2.2 pounds) in 1926 to little more than one thousand kilos in 1931. (16) So you want to go back to the point in history to create millions of american heroin addicts and where, when legal, 94% of criminal drug users are heroin addicts?

By: Luc

Luc — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:51:24 +0000

Ah yes: Capitol Hill. That’s where I always turn to first when I want straightforward, unbiased information about the “war on drugs.” Give me a break. Now, now, it is essentially a NYT article from 1989. Quite readable. But open to an entirely different conclusion than Italy experimented with decriminalizing heroin for personal use and their addiction rate skyrocketed. In fact it doesn’t even mention anything like that. That nonsense is indeed produced by someone from Capitol Hill.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:54:03 +0000

Italy experimented with decriminalizing heroin for personal use and their addiction rate skyrocketed. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r101:S20OC9-479: Ah yes: Capitol Hill. That’s where I always turn to first when I want straightforward, unbiased information about the “war on drugs.” Give me a break.

By: Luc

Luc — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:51:54 +0000

A few figures to light the bonfire here. Last month cannabis/marijuana use as % of people 12 years and older: Amsterdam (Netherlands): 7.8 % Vermont (US) : 10.04 % US (all states) : 6.2 % Now that must be easy to explain given that Amsterdam is a city with +/- 270 licensed places where you can buy various kinds of marijuana. Now I’m all for a law that prohibits smoking it within a hundred meters from me, because I find the smell distasteful. But decriminalising worked in the Netherlands, whatever your opinion about the morality of it.

By: GMT

GMT — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:46:57 +0000

Your refusal to acknowledge the very real sufferring caused by this wave of addiction is simply bizzare. Your ignorance of what was driving the opium trade is crippling. Go read.