Why TSA, Wars, State Defined Diets, Seat-Belt Laws, the War On Drugs, Police

[dug]

A couple more news articles about this event

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110513/cm_ac/8463439_illinois_school_terrorizes_students_with_fake_gunman_drill

http://www.journalstandard.com/news/education/x2132689378/Orangeville-superintendent-Otto-resigns-from-office

Brrrrr... that chills the spine! The only positive aspect I can gather from this latest outrage is that those kids got a good education as to who the real terrorists are. If my kid was at that school I would be seeking a good lawyer.

But back to the point "what do we do about it ?"

Teach your children well, stay true to your moral convictions, pray for the best. Hopefully a hundred monkeys will come on board.

[Native_NM]

Bread and circuses.  All this talk is just another take on the Roman's strategy to placate the masses:

"the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"

Red/Blue and Left/Right bickering is the new circus.  Meanwhile, back in Washington....
   

[Windpower]

Brrrrr... that chills the spine! The only positive aspect I can gather from this latest outrage is that those kids got a good education as to who the real terrorists are. If my kid was at that school I would be seeking a good lawyer.

Teach your children well, stay true to your moral convictions, pray for the best. Hopefully a hundred monkeys will come on board.

you got it, dug

[IronRanger]

War on drugs...I'll summarize an article I cannot find:  Prison guards and visitors are getting caught smuggling drugs into prison and we think we can keep them out of the US? 

Yes, I realize some are getting caught. However, if you believe all, or even a majority are, then you're doing a very good imitation of an ostrich.

[rwanders]

War on drugs...I'll summarize an article I cannot find:  Prison guards and visitors are getting caught smuggling drugs into prison and we think we can keep them out of the US? 

Yes, I realize some are getting caught. However, if you believe all, or even a majority are, then you're doing a very good imitation of an ostrich.

i would say it's 10% or, more likely much less than that-----just keeping on keeping on with Prohibition, Act II is an incredibly expensive and, even worse, an ineffective policy. It's an act of political cowardice----refusing to face the truth and admit to the voters that we gotta try something different.

[IronRanger]

I agree, rwanders.  If you've seen The Wire, they had an idea to centralize the drug industry in a rundown/abandoned area of the city.  All the drug dealers and drug users were to operate/use in this area only, or the police would crack down hardcore on them. 

These are the types of ideas we need to start looking at.  Homeless people could move into the surrounding area, for very cheap rent and health care, creating a buffer zone from the hardcore users.

It' time to confront these types of issues, rather than looking the other way or calling someone an "unpatriotic democrat" for exposing these problems in our society.

As an aside, I believe fining or jailing people for homelessness is unconstitutional.

I need to quit, or it'll turn into a long-winded off-topic diatribe.

[Native_NM]

Who would pay for the cheap rent and health care?  Drug users have serious health issues and or more likely NOT to hold a stable job.  Who's dime?

[dug]

I'm pretty sure that "The War on Drugs" has been proven to be far more expensive than it would be to provide full rehab for addicts.

[Native_NM]

I don't disagree that it would be cheaper.  If we legalize drugs, who is going to pay for the lost productivity and the associated costs?

[rwanders]

I don't disagree that it would be cheaper.  If we legalize drugs, who is going to pay for the lost productivity and the associated costs?

Who pays for it now or for same caused by alcohol? It is simply part of the cost of business for society as a whole. At least we would not be paying for the ineffective war on drugs.

About 10% of those who initially use recreational drugs (including alcohol) become addicted---that rate has been observed to be true in many studies of drug/alcohol usage. Some just decide they don't like them, some just are able to maintain occasional usage patterns. The 10% are suspected of having a genetic pre-disposition though the mechanism has not been completely defined. The 10% rate has been found even in those on extended opiate treatment due to traumatic injuries--roughly 10% will have difficulties when their medication is stopped. Surprisingly, the majority of these patients will have uneventful or minor addictive indications when their opiates are stopped. Of course, there is no way to identify the unlucky 10 percenters in advance and some genetically and/or culturally similar groups can suffer much higher addiction rates (i.e. native americans)

Rational approaches to the drug issues are difficult due the puritanical streak still much inherent in our history and culture. Good examples of this cultural hallmark can be found in the so-called "blue laws" still on the books and often enforced in many jurisdictions. (i.e. No alcohol sales on Sundays or not before noon on Sundays----what's the rational basis for that?) For many years in Virginia, it was illegal to sell a loaf of bread on Sundays but, you could buy a car---cars came along after the law was written to ensure we all focused on church-going instead of crass commercial business. In DC you weren't allowed to stand up at a bar--had to sit down (never did figure out what inspired that one)

Just a few examples of the irrational approaches we seem to embrace about substances  or activities seen as "immoral" in our culture.

[Native_NM]

I agree that alcohol is an expensive to society.  I think that the negative effects of certain drugs, particularly if they are legalized and the stigma is removed, would be greater than than alcohol.  I understand that plenty of people use alcohol and marijuana on a recreational basis;  I doubt that many use crack or meth or heroin on a recreational basis. 

I'm mixed.  I'm a strong advocate for personal freedoms, liberty, and personal responsibility.  I also recognize that if we give them the rope, 10% of the population will hang themselves.  Sadly, it is not a quick death, but rather an expensive, downward spiral that is usually subsidized by the taxpayer.

[peternap]

I agree that alcohol is an expensive to society.  I think that the negative effects of certain drugs, particularly if they are legalized and the stigma is removed, would be greater than than alcohol.  I understand that plenty of people use alcohol and marijuana on a recreational basis;  I doubt that many use crack or meth or heroin on a recreational basis. 

I'm mixed.  I'm a strong advocate for personal freedoms, liberty, and personal responsibility.  I also recognize that if we give them the rope, 10% of the population will hang themselves.  Sadly, it is not a quick death, but rather an expensive, downward spiral that is usually subsidized by the taxpayer.

I think the answer is obvious NM...although not very PC. Fortunately, I'm not either

We have reached the point where the government cannot support peoples bad habits anymore. That's evident by the number of programs that are being cut now.

It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their actions again.
I drink very little. It could be measured in ounces per year. This isn't because I can't afford help if I become a drunk, rather because I have other things to do and can't do them while drinking. Like most, I had my affair with beer in my younger years but when I had to start accepting responsibility, I did.

Even though I was a young adult in the 60's and 70's, I never used drugs. It was popular but I just never had the urge and was aware of the consequences.

Most people are that way and always have been.

Those that choose to get involved deeply in drugs or alcohol should have the right to do so but when it comes down to getting public help, which normally doesn't cure the problem anyway, or  hitching up their drawers and getting straight on their own.......
will just have to do it on their own or die.

It's a harsh reality but it is reality.

[dug]

Prohibition didn't curb drinking, and it's repeal didn't increase it. It just raised the price and turned former upstanding citizens into criminals, and made some criminals rich.

People who take illegal drugs have no problem buying them now so I don't think legalizing them would entice non-users to suddenly have an urge to take up crystal meth, heroin, crack cocaine, or huffing spray paint. Sensible people would avoid these because they are debilitating, just as they would avoid excessive alcohol use.

I believe the war on drugs is a political one and as usual it involves money (lots) and societal control.

[rwanders]

Dug's got it right folks. When you pose the question of legalizing drugs as a choice between a society with drugs and one without drugs. That choice is bogus----The real choice is between imposing some doable restraints on their usage and the current ineffective attempts to totally ban the "manufacture and sale of....". Precisely what they tried with alcohol.  Except drinking alcoholic beverages was NEVER illegal even during Prohibition and each  person could brew their own beer or make their own wine for their use (200 gallons per year) Even with those exceptions Prohibition proved unworkable.

[Windpower]

*attempting to nudge the conversation back on topic*

"What we have in common is the need to protect one another's inviolability from governmental force. When we understand that the woman being groped by a TSA agent stands in the same shoes as our wife, mother, or grandmother; when the man being beaten by a sadist cop is seen, by us, as our father or grandfather, we become less willing to evade the nature of the wrongdoing by invoking the coward's plea: "better him than me." The state owes its very existence to the success it has had in fostering division among us, a topic I explored in my Calculated Chaos book. Divide-and-conquer has long been the mainstay in political strategy. If blacks and whites; or Christians and Muslims; or employees and employers; or "straights" and "gays"; or men and women; or any of seemingly endless abstractions, learn to identify and separate themselves from one another, the state has established its base of power. From such mutually-exclusive categories do we draw the endless "enemies" (e.g., communists, drug-dealers, terrorists, tobacco companies) we are to fear, and against whom the state promises its protection. By becoming fearful, we become existentially disabled, and readily accept whatever safeguards the institutional fear-mongers impose, . . . all for our "benefit," of course!

Look at the title of this article: do you find any governmental program or practice therein that is not grounded in state-generated fear? Each one – and the numerous others not mentioned – presumes a threat to your well-being against which the state must take restrictive and intrusive action. Terrorists might threaten the flight you are about to take; terrorist nations might have "weapons of mass destruction" and the intention to use them against you; your children might be at risk from drug dealers or from sex perverts using the Internet; driving without a seat-belt, or eating "junk" foods might endanger you: the list goes on and on, changing as the fear-peddlers dream up another dreaded condition in life."

[Native_NM]

Fear affects the weak-minded.  Bullies fear intelligence and brute strength.

[rwanders]

"the list goes on and on, changing as the fear-peddlers dream up another dreaded condition in life."
                       -------By windpower

You're right Windpower,  No better proof of what you say then reading your substantial contributions to the folklore of dire threats that can be found in the threads of these forums. Readers will be transfixed  by your shocking exposure of both private and public cabals dedicated to the destruction of our way of life which has never existed.

It is courageous alarmists like you that have earned our enduring gratitude for providing the truth about the multitude of mythical evildoers, irrefutable evidence of which can be found in the writings of numerous bloggers, anonymous rumor mongers, noted snake oil salesmen, and other acclaimed sources found in that newest testament of the received word, the internet. Deniers of these well varnished truths are bravely confronted by you and other tireless defenders of the faith waving websites which will testify to the truth of the cries of world-wide cataclysms, due as early as next week, the threats to our precious bodily fluids, and births of babies with two heads whose mothers were forced to drink water poisoned with fluoride as they fled with their hybrid alien/human children from nurses waving needles filled with vaccines. Deniers are often admonished by you, master of the ancient and honorable art of sophistry, to read for yourself how these other pioneers of the new internet testament all guarantee that their information has received the endorsements of leading mad scientists and medical doctors who will get their licenses back as soon as they reveal the insidious plot to silence them. When the doubting sheeples cry out for even more illusions of evidence they are gobsmacked by your deft use of numerous, at least two, websites who will each firmly attest to the veracity of the other, except for that whacko at theworldwillendtomorrowataroundtwothirtypm.com, who never returns the favor, Screw him.


RW

ps: the devil makes me do it

[Windpower]

RW quote
"the list goes on and on, changing as the fear-peddlers dream up another dreaded condition in life."
                       -------By windpower

unquote

Since you clearly didn't recognize the quote was from the original article by Butler Shaffer, I didn't bother to even skim the rest of your post, RW

[rwanders]

 

Windpower, you take yourself way too seriously. You need to lighten up and find some laughter in life. Your blood pressure and stomach would thank you.

Was looking forward to being put straight by a real old fashioned Windpowered blast. I assumed that the article you quoted reflected your agreement with the original writer's sentiments. It just seemed to be you speaking  through him. I always try to properly appreciate the existential threats you see so clearly. I apologize for my failure to embrace their gravitas on so many occasions. 

Your Friend

RW

ps:  to NM--I don't think Wind wants to play anymore.