The following is a letter I wrote to Dean Esmay last night. He gave me a challenge in this post, as his first response to my essay Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism, and I wanted to respond. I wanted to post a more coherent answer, but it will have to do in a pinch. I do have other work. Let me preface it with a funny quote Dean sent me in reply: "I apologize for the length of this letter, but I lacked the time to make it shorter." Also, the disclaimer that it's not exactly spellchecked. Sorry. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2064 words, total size 13 kb.

Dean Esmay has a pretty good post about whether or not Islam compatible with democracy or not. Go read it.

Also, after you have read it you should probably read my essay Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism, in which I argue that Islam is a socio-political ideology every bit as much as it is a religion. It is much like Marxism in that the core ideology itself leads is incompatible with Western liberalism.

Now, let's return to Dean's post. Unfortunately, the data he provides is a classic example of what statisticians call selection bias. That is, you use data which supports your hypothesis and then exclude data which nullifies it.

Another problem is that the data do show that Muslim nations are becoming more free. A good sign, no doubt. But becoming more free does not make one free. One might argue that China is becoming more free, or that the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was becoming less authoritarian, yet there is no doubt in my mind that Communism is somehow intertwined with the fact that freedom was so scarce. Becoming more or less of anything is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

Further, Indonesia has been a terrible ally in the war on terror. See this, this, this, this, and this. They have not cracked down on radical Muslims any more than has suited their own national interests. It is in no way a liberal democracy. Freedom House is simply wrong in this respect. I would point out that it is a crime for a Christian to give a Bible to a Muslin in Indonesia. And much of the Indonesian culture itself is not tolerant in any liberal sense of the word. And is a country truly a liberal democracy if a pictureless version of Playboy is banned?

Last, he gives the example of Senegal and Mali as the only nations on earth that have a Muslim majority and which are listed by Freedom House as liberal democracies (excluding Indonesia). Given that Freedom House gets it dead wrong on Indonesia, I suspect that there may be problems with their coding of Senegal and Mali as well. But I could be wrong. I don't know enough about these countries to speak on whether or not Freedom House correctly codes them.

However, statistically speaking two examples do not a falsification make. There are always exceptions to rules. My original point was that the Left loved to use Yugoslavia as an exemple of a 'free' Communist country. Even if we were to grant them that Yugoslavia was 'free' during the Cold War, to claim that there was not a causal relationship between Communism and totalitarianism based on a single outlier is an example of poor analysis (or poor operationalizing skills).

If one were really interested in seeing whether or not there is a relationship between Islam and liberalism, I would suggest the following. In fact, I dare any one to run the following analysis.

Hypothesis: there is a strong correlation between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Null Hypothesis: there is no relationship between the percent of a nation's population that is Muslim and the extent to which that country's population is free in the liberal sense of the word.

Plot a simple OLS regression model with the two variables. The first variable would simply be % Muslim. The second variable would be the Freedom House numbers. Since the Freedom House Numbers are coded negatively the following results should be found.

If Dean is right, and there is no relationship between Islam and freedom, then obviously the plots should be completely randomly distributed.

If I am right, and there is a relationship between Islam and freedom, then a positively sloping line should emerge. That is to say, as the percentage of Muslims in a country goes up, the Freedom House numbers should also go up.

The third alternative, of course, is that there is a positive correlation between Islam and liberal democracy, in which case one would find a negatively sloping line.

If we are agreed that the above is a moderately fair way of empircally testing the relationship between Islam and tyranny, then the gauntlet has been thrown. I personally do not have the time to run the numbers, but perhaps some enterprising blogger with moderate experience using SPSS would like to give it a go? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:00 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 835 words, total size 6 kb.

Inspired by Rusty, who was, uh, inspired by other people.

Then again, I may have been inspired by this.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:02 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Howie at 07:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

I received an e-mail from N.Z. Bear earlier today inviting me to be one of the original signers of a letter from center-right bloggers to the House Republican leadership. A lot of bloggers have signed on to the letter. I did not. Most of them are people I respect, so it is baffling that they signed it even though one would think they agree with my central argument. The letter is silly and meaningless. Here is my response. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:04 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 799 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I must confess I really don't see the big deal in this whole Abramoff thing. Should we be shocked or outraged politicians were paid by a lobbyist to influence their decisions? Isn't that was lobbyists do? I know a lobbyist and he is a very decent man and has told me a great deal of how he tries to advance his client's wishes upon politicians. Abromoff was sleazy, but the act of lobbying is just as democratic and American as Freedom of Speech and apple pie.

Posted by: Chad Evans at January 13, 2006 09:51 PM (+DXHJ)

2 I'm with you on this one, Rusty.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 13, 2006 10:12 PM (rUyw4)

3 Lobbying is just legalized, institutionalized, regulated bribery, and Abramoff is no more or less guilty than anyone else. That being said, I think lobbying must be outlawed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 10:14 PM (0yYS2)

4 You are such a rebel. Heh. Indeed.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 13, 2006 10:22 PM (Kr6/f)

5 Amen, what Rusty said. What would be gained by sending lobbying underground? Power and money will always attract each other. You might as well pass a law against gravity.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 13, 2006 10:54 PM (RHG+K)

6 Or we could set an example by sending crooks to jail. But then, getting gravity repealed would be much more realistic. Democracy allows us to give ourselves exactly the government we deserve. Good and hard. Sometimes I wished I still believed in God, because at least then I could smile thinking of politicians burning in hell for eternity, but I'm afraid the only justice they'll ever know is what we give them, and we don't seem to care enough to do what needs done, i.e. mass hangings of the sons of bitches.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 11:36 PM (0yYS2)

7 Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government. Keep your transparency. I will gladly let my Congressman get away with just about anything in exchange for protecting me from the bad guys of the world and keeping his grubby paws out of my pockets. Let their paws remain in the pockets of whoever is trying to bribe them. Better their's than mine. I hope every Congressman who is committed to winning the war on terror and getting the hell out of my life will support a candidate who doesn't give a damn what the New York Times or Chris Matthews thinks about them. Now THAT I'd sign. But I ain't signing the other one either.

Posted by: Misha I at January 14, 2006 12:50 AM (UJ8z1)

8 As well as a petition to make your software remember the blockquote around the second paragraph.

Posted by: Misha I at January 14, 2006 12:51 AM (UJ8z1)

9 Rusty, I agree more with you on this one. I'm not against reform in the Congress where lobbying and giving favors is concerned, but I'm more concerned with the issues. Shadegg seems to be a pretty good guy and mostly conservative, but I've only just heard of him. As for Abramoff, from what I can tell, he siphoned money into his own pockets. How this make Tom DeLay or anyone else guilty of anything, I really couldn't say. It's just the MSM trying to make DeLay guilty by association, and it makes me madder 'n hell. I've met DeLay personally, and he was very approachable. I felt at the time that he was a genuinely nice person which is a totally different experience than I have had with other politicians. Why Republicans in power decided not to defend DeLay is beyond me and it really makes me angry that they did not defend DeLay nor Lott when it was crunch time. Thanks for your insight.

Posted by: RepJ at January 14, 2006 11:28 AM (kEpN/)

10 Come on. This is a demonstrable and outrageous example of corrupt sleaze and it ought to have consequences. First, Congress is not the CIA. The CIA is supposed to work with sleazy methods and use sleazy people to accomplish national goals. Congress is not. They should have seen Abramoff for what he was and steered clear. Second, Abramoff's main goals were to fortify and manipulate an enormous government monopoly that is tied to a specific ethnic group. He wanted to give some indian tribes the right to build casinos, and deny that same right to others. Nice libertarian, free-market system you got there. As for who is being "realistic" here: what do you think the effect next November will be if the Republicans show up at the polls fat, drunk, and unrepentant with wads of lobbyist cash stuffed in their pockets? Whether you're right or not, the limited government and strong national defense guys are vulnerable at the ballot box and they need to publicly hose out the monkey cage.

Posted by: See-Dubya at January 14, 2006 01:01 PM (NZHCc)

11 Misha has a point; I'd rather have a known crook in office than a pretend honest man any day. It seems to have worked out well for everyone who ever voted for the Kennedys...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 14, 2006 09:41 PM (0yYS2)

12 All your Abramoff'ds are belong to trash. Don't put officially dirty politicians in visible places of power.

Posted by: A Finn at January 15, 2006 08:42 AM (lGolT)

13 Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government. Yeah, as soon as you find ONE of those folks, let us know, 'kay.

Posted by: bryan at January 15, 2006 09:04 AM (Pa0YX)

14 I have no problem with the bastards going to Hedonism II either, just let them do it on their own dime like the rests of us...err... like other people do.

Posted by: Digger at January 16, 2006 05:05 PM (Vu+DO)

15 "Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government." The problem with this idea is if the unethical involves taking bribes to advance special interests, there is no way the will be committed to limited government. Simply isn't possible. Yes, the congressmen will be taking the lobbyists money, but they lobbyists are paying Congress to take your money and give it to them, either directly or indirectly.

Posted by: Dave Justus at January 16, 2006 05:07 PM (Ttn36)

16 Rusty, you are right that the Abramoff thing is not a big deal in truth . . . but it is a big deal in the minds of the Dems and their MSM comrades (but I repeat myself). They will continue to blow on these embers until the fire catches. Then, as usual, it will be up to us blogs and Drudge and FoxNews to set the record straight and hold the MSM's feet to the fire to tell the truth. My sources in the RNC (yeah, I actually do have sources at the RNC) tell me that they are beginning to hear from their members about the "scandal" and, while, as you said, most people do not actually understand the situation or its ramifications, these members say they are "concerned" about it. When you start to hear this sort of thing from the rank-and-file members, you can bet that there are more out there who are thinking that way but simply have not spoken up to date. If it has crossed that threshold, it won't be long until the faux scandal becomes perceptually real. The Dems and the MSM will continue their caterwauling until the public believes it. (But they'll somehow forget that Harry Reid is one of only five official persons of interest in the current case . . . go figure.) I signed the petition. I still think that it is something the Reps should do and do immediately, if only from a political strategy point of view. Getting out in front of a "scandal" is the best way to minimize it.

Posted by: The Artist at January 16, 2006 05:33 PM (FVAyP)

17 While I agree with much of what you say here, especially about how the voters are ultimately responsible through their disinterest, I must question the statement, "My major concern is that the next Majority Leader has a bloodlust for terrorists, will not be shirk from calling fascism fascism when the fascists in question are a group favored by the Left,and who will make sure enough money is spent to win the war on terror." So, are fascist who are favored by the Right acceptable? I think fascism of any stripe should be called fascism, rejected outright, and fought against, regardless of which wing favors it.

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 06:20 PM (ne61C)

18 Unfortunately, to change the rules you've got to play the game. In playing the game, you "forget" that you want to change the rules. That said, I have two proposals to reform Congress: 1) Annual salary should be 10 X whatever it is now (~$160,000?) Free Congressional health care for life and a $30,000 annual pension for each term served (3 terms = $90,000.) These benefits become null and void should the Congressperson ever be convicted of any crime. 2) Term limits. No one may serve in a congressional office more than three terms. Congressional staff may not work for congress more than 7 years. 3) Repeal McCain-Feingold and make every campaign contribution publicly known on the web. (Always underpromise and over deliver) The idea behind these three proposals is to get seasoned, competent people into the Congress. Let's attract talent by the paycheck and not force Congressmen to fulfill their natural desires by short-changing the country.

Posted by: Allan at January 16, 2006 07:31 PM (Veogk)

19 "Give me 435 unethical, whoremongering, immoral, back room elected Congressman committed to limited government." Well hell, I can lower that by one if the bastards would just accept my application. Geez.

Posted by: Hector Vex at January 16, 2006 09:03 PM (fjqPS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Professor Leopold Stotch has jumped the shark and claimed Irish citizenship as is his right. After calling him a traitor, he responded to me by saying that if the U.S. and Ireland ever got into a war that he'd be the first to volunteer to push the button turning Belfast into 'The Forbidden Zone' of any number of Mad Max films.

Although I don't doubt his loyalty, I say it again: traitor. Or, if not a traitor, something really really icky.

One of the main problems with mass-immigration is that it leads to mixed loyalty. Soccer games between the U.S. and Mexico bring crowds of Mexican immigrants who root for Mexico. That's just a little example of the mixed loyalty of immigrants who fail to assimilate fully. In the conflict between the I.R.A. (allied with the Soviets) and the Brits (allied with us), pro-republican sentiments were often expressed by Irish-Americans who backed their sentiments up with aid to the terror organization.

So, how can having dual citizenship ever be a good thing?

Posted by: Rusty at 09:23 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Matt Welch has responded to those arguing for propaganda in Reason magazine here. Matt and I have exchanged several e-mails over the subject, the crux of which were "Boy, I just really wish we had the time to delve into this more deeply"--or, at least, I wish I had more time. I mean, it is Friday and I am a university professor and blogging is work.....

Nevetheless, the divide here seems to be between the neo-libertarian right--which believes liberty means something different in war time than in peace--and the paleo-libertarian right--which believes (at least under my reading) that liberty is a constant.

Here is one of the core arguments made by Matt:

Shackleford's folly, aside from the feeble unpatriotic slap, is that that formulation assumes all weapons are equally neutral in moral value and practical effectiveness, which they are not. There's a reason, aside from international treaty, we no longer use nerve gas on enemy lines, or napalm on villages, or atomic bombs on cities -- world reaction would cause more negative consequences than whatever "positive" gains could be had on the ground. And if we used horses to do a tank's job, or muskets instead of M-16s, these weapons wouldn't be an "asset," they'd be a hindrance.

Now batting for Rusty Shackleford, Steve Green the Vodkapundit:

Now then. If a nuke were to go off in New York or Los Angeles or even Des Moines tomorrow, do you doubt that even President Kerry (cough, cough) would hesitate before retaliating in kind? Oh, but that would be retaliation, wouldn't it? And would it not therefore be a fair response? And what about propaganda? It's not as if the enemy doesn't use it – so why should our government be so restrained? Especially when our stuff is pretty damn innocent? [Read the rest]

The second, and more important argument made by Matt is on the effectiveness of propaganda. Even if it is moral to use, it should not be if it does more harm than good:

Is unlabeled propaganda a useful weapon? In the long run I don't think it is. First, people will eventually find out, either from military officials alarmed at the practice, or Iraqi journalists with whatever motive. As most dictators have eventually learned, truth [ed note: emphasis mine] has a way breaking through even the tightest of seals.

And as long as we're playing with effete American League rules, why not send in two pinch-hitters for Shackleford (after all, I'm a pitcher not a catcher)? Now batting for Rusty Shackleford, Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdon:

....the actual “outing” of the propaganda effort by the LAT is, ironically, the only thing that might cause the effort to backfire—but then, we murder to dissect, as they say....

Taking this parallel one step further, let me add that our use of propaganda seems to me to fit this paradigm perfectly, insofar as we have used it to beat back the anti-American rhetoric coming not only from the Arab world, but from the western press as well.

Or to put it more bluntly, this campaign was designed to retaliate not only against enemy propaganda in Iraq and other parts of the middle east, but ironically (and sadly) against our very own media, whose coverage has been almost uniformly sensationalistic and dire. [Read the rest]

UPDATE: Wunderkraut sends me a link to this nifty graphic from File It Under. Click it for a larger view and then go check out the original post here.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:03 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 697 words, total size 5 kb.

Tom Delay should resign from Congress. Did he do anything illegal? I've no idea. Campaign finance laws are like the tax code: so complicated as to lose all meaning to the average citizen. But whether or not Delay broke any laws is beside the point in my mind. He is the poster child for the peddling of Washington's largess to special interests.

He is the Republican version of Dan Rostenkowski. Did Rostenskowski break some minor federal laws? Perhaps, but the larger problem with the former Democratic Ways and Means Committee Chair was not that he committed 'mail fraud' but that he used his position in Congress to take my money away from me and give to his constituents, his campaign donors, and his ideological allies.

Congress is full of politicians who engage in quid pro quos with special interests. But some are worse than others. Tom Delay is one of the worst.

Is Ronnie Earle a partisan hack? That's a given. But even partisan hacks sometimes get it right, even when they are motivated by, well, partisanship. I've no idea if he's gotten it right here, but again, that is the least of my concerns.

There is a second and unrelated reason Delay should resign. Tom Delay hurts the Republican Party and helps the Democratic Party. I don't really care if Delay hurts the Republican Party. I am a big believer in the two-party system--as long as those two parties are Republicans and Libertarians. What I am not a big believer in are the statist principles at the core of Democratic philosophy and which are increasingly becoming part of Republican practice.

As long as the Democrats remain the party of bigger government as opposed to the Republicans just being the party of big government, then anything that helps them win cannot be good for the country.

The perception of corruption and ineptness in Washington by the public is uncannily familiar. I smell 1994 in the air again. The Democrats only need to come up with their own Contract With America--some coherent alternative vision based on a 'reform' agenda--and they will win back the House of Representatives.

So, Tom Delay, do us all a favor: resign. Spare us all the headache of putting a party in power who wants even more government so that it can dole out even more favors to even more special interests, campaign donors, and ideological allies. The country is in bad enough shape with you helping to run it, let's not make it any worse.

This will serve as my one and only post on the Delay scandal. The Jawa has spoken.

More Delay reaction from RINOs here at The Politburo Diktat. UPDATE: Due to heavy schedule here, I've been kind of out of it. Michelle Malkin has big roundup here. Ahhh, and check out the two last paragraphs from Captain Ed. UPDATE II: Professor Chaos, truth detector. Hawkins is right, but he needs to go go, not just go. UPDATE III: Chris Abraham, right on. Rusty Shackleford, 'bedwetting right'?? Are you kidding me?--Update: I have been assured that I was not part of the 'bedwetting right' alluded to here. Good to know.

UPDATE IV: Ok, John from Wuzzadem pretty much has the 'don't get on the indict Delay bandwagon yet because this just gives the moonbats fuel for the fire' argument summed up--sorta.

UPDATE V: Let me make myself clear:

Happy?

UPDATE VI: Willisms de-links me because I don't drink the party kool-aid at every turn, even after I try to reassert my street cred by calling on Leftists in Congress to do the same. Very unclassy. PS-had I realized you weren't on the blogroll I certainly would have added you, especially if you had asked. And, BTW, The Jawa Report is 'skinnable'. If you want a light background with dark text, simply click on the link in the upper right corner.

What I've never understood is people who put party loyalty above principle. It's the same reason I think the modern Democratic party has largely become a farce and an anti-American institution. They oppose the war because, er, they have to because, er, they're the party of opposition.

I'm not going to support Delay simply because he is the enemy of my enemy. This isn't war, no one is going to die if Delay goes down, he's not that important to my agenda--which is winning the war on terror.

There is something deeply disturbing about people who think it is their duty to be the propoganda arm of the Republican party and who think it an act of betrayal to oppose any one or anything that they are for.

I, for one, encourage reasoned disagreement. And, as always, I am open to having my mind changed if there is some angle that I haven't given enough thought to.

UPDATE VII: Let me get the two sides of the argument straight. One side, my side (now joined by Pieter Dorsman), thinks defending Delay helps the Democratic party by associating the party with perceived misdeeds. The other side, most of my readers are in this category (I'm looking in your general direction Filthy), think that if Delay goes down then the Dems come out on top and will go after the next politician they hate--thus, we must support Delay so that this doesn't happen.

Is this a fair presentation of the two sides of the argument?

UPDATE VIII: Loyal reader Marcus Aurelius disagrees.

UPDATE IX: We are officially in a blogfluffle.

UPDATE X: For John at Wuzzadem. I'm not supporting Delay's indictment. How should I know whether the charges are true or not? I just want him gone, gone, gone. It's a logical fallacy, in my mind, to equate someone resigning from office because they're pathetic scoundrals (which Delay is) and hurt the overall cause, with supporting those that wish to see him in jail. Anyway, those following the debate should probably go read John's post. But I wonder, isn't the greater pack mentality the reflexive defense of Delay because he's 'our guy' than we few who dare call for his resignation?

And for Beth, long-time blog-friend, I'd say that the Left hates Delay for a number of reasons, and that, yes, one of them is that he's effective. Mostly the effectiveness they hate him for has to do with the Texas redistricting push that he was largely responsible for. But just because they hate him for those reasons does not mean that I must also hate him for the same reasons. I hate him for the same reason Newt Gingrich hated the Democratic leadership of the 1980's--they were spendthrifts and Washington insider influence peddlers of the highest caliber. I did not support the Democrats when they drummed Newt out of Congress. Tom Delay, though, is no Newt Gingrich.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:18 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 1176 words, total size 8 kb.

Here is a letter I received from Dubai. I thought you might like to read it. Notice how the self-proclaimed not an antisemite accuses me of being a J-O-O.

Dear sir,

Ive visited your website, n i read almost everything u have there. Dont u think ur too biased?

Karim,
Yes, I am biased. This is my personal website reflecting my personal opinions. By definition, then, this site is biased.

Im an arab muslim who lives in the United Arab Emirates, in Dubai.. You
probably odnt know where that is, cause Americans are too busy to think of
the outside world normally, unless it concerns energy probllems. Dubai is one of the only 5-Star cities in the world (There are only 5 5-star cities).

I know where the UAE and Dubai is. Nice place. I believe Michael Jackson is there now. Of course, by 'nice place' I mean nice as long as you stay within specially designated zones where we infidels are allowed to act like infidels. I'm not so sure I would like the rest of your country where I could not openly practice my chosen religion of South Park Universalistic Hedonism (Missouri Synod). I am required to shout 'Allah is a Buddhist' three times a day at the top of my lungs or I will be excommunicated.

Many foreigners live here, Including European and American people, who happen to love it here.

Personally I'm more into liberty than making a buck, but I understand the allure. The beaches, from what I've seen, look pretty kick ass. Any topless ones?

Dont you think you make us all sound like people who are ready to put guns to the heads of every american and kill them ?

No, I do not. I certainly hope not, at least.

I Have numerous American and English friends who would disagree. I love my american friends, ive lived with them almost all my life, we share respect and trust, and so do our families. We do not seperate Muslims from Christians (that is one of the biggest sins in Islam by the way), we do not see things that way.

I guess you are not a good Muslim then, or at least not a traditionalist, since the Quran and Hadiths explicitly place Christians not living in second-class dhimmi status as part of dar al-harb--a seperate nation. Perhaps you are a reform minded liberal Muslim who has rejected Sharia, most of the Hadiths, most traditional interpretations of the Quran, and has decided to join the 21st Century? I hope so.

We are all peacefull people, who happen to be ill-treated by your government.

Since when has the U.S. government done anything harmful to the people of the United Arab Emirites? Oh, by 'we' you mean 'Muslims'. I thought you didn't seperate people and that was like a big sin or something?

Look at Palestine. Israelis Have been destroying the homes of familes whos sons have suicide bombed places in Israel. U might think "hey, they deserveit, let the bastards take it all, "

Yes, I do. I only wish they made bigger tractors. Hey, how do you people in the UAE treat Jews? Oh, wait, all of them were forced to leave.

But What do u think it takes a man to decide to suicide and kill himself?! Lots of guts, and desperation.

Very true. And hatred. And faith that Allah will accept him into paradise for killing Jews.

Desperation caused by Israeli Forces who kill children and familes, and let kids watch their parents rot infront of them while they surround their house.

Then perhaps the fathers should not be terrorists? That would go a long way in solving that problem.

You dont know a thing about what we fell, you just look at the Israeli perspective.. your probably a jew too, and i dont mean it as an insult.

Again with the we thing. I don't take it as one. I'm not a Jew, although I'm cut, but I would count myself in good company if I was one. Did you know that Natalee Portman is a Jew? Not that it's important, but I'd definitely convert for a pice of that. And if you don't mean it as an insult, then why make the accusation? Unless you think there is something wrong with that?

You have to open your eyes. Your people are rated the most close-minded people on earth, and yes you are.

I'm sure the people of the UAE are much more open minded. I have a Bible, a Book of Mormon, a Theravada, and a Rig-Veda sitting around the office. How about I come to your country and pass them out on the street? Since your people are so 'open-minded' let's see what kind of reaction I would get.

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:25 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1596 words, total size 9 kb.

Did the 9/11 Commission Report leave out mention of Iraqi agents arrested in Germany that could link Mohammed Atta's Hamburg cell of al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein's regime?

Captain Ed had made this speculation earlier here, not claiming that such a link existed but only that this needs further investigation.

I replied in this earlier post that maybe this should be looked into, but that the speculation that such ties could exist were unwarrented by the facts.

He in turn put up another post on the subject, this time wondering whether or not the evidence for Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague ought to be looked at again.

Captain Ed and I have been going back and forth on this both in the comments section here and through e-mail. The gist of what Ed was saying was that in light of the Able Danger revelations, it is possible that the 9/11 Commission was predisposed to leave out certain bits of evidence that would run contrary to their findings. It is a good observation, one that I would agree with, but on the grounds that that is just par for the course in any type of research that has to sift through tons of data points.

Another valid point he makes is that his earlier post simply calls for an investigation into what the Iraqi agents were doing in Germany--with a bit of speculation thrown in their to boot. Fine by me. The 9/11 Commission Report is a flawed document just like all other government reports. It is not the final word on 9/11 and those that treat it as such fail to grasp the enormity of the task the Commission had under time constraints. I suspect the next twenty years will produce countless dissertations on the subject by Ph.D. candidates, each one contributing a new piece of information to the overall story of the attrocities that took place on that day.

One of the points that I made to Ed in an e-mail was regarding the validity of his source and his interpretation of the story. My objection was simply that an English synopsis of an Arabic newspaper in Germany may not be the most reliable source. Especially when that source claims the CIA was brought to Germany--something that I am sure they could not have known. My experience with Arabic papers is that any person wearing a business suit and working for the U.S. in any peripheral capacity can be accused of being a 'CIA Agent'.

Ed took up the challenge, and lo and behold, one of his army of readers was able to produce a corraborating account. So, according to MSM reports at the time, we have two Iraqi spies caught in Germany. The non-Arabic sources also mention nothing about the CIA or FBI getting involved and also nothing about a plot for Iraq to involve itself with fundamentalist Islamic terror groups to strike at US interests.

Ed is right that it would be nice to know what those Iraqi spies were doing in Germany. I second the motion. I'm not sure that such knowlege would have improved the 9/11 Report in any fundamental way, but it might have.

To imagine, though, that the fact that there were Iraqi agents in Germany somehow may be the missing link connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 is grasping at straws, in my opinion. Many of us on the right would like to believe that such a connection existed because we believe that that would somehow bolster support for the war. But the justness or unjustness of the Iraq invasion ultimately does not rest on whether or not the Baathist regime had anything to do with 9/11.

Further, the war we are fighting in Iraq now is a different war than the one we fought to overthrow the Hussein regime. It is not simply another phase of the same conflict, it is a different war. We are fighting different people and we now have different goals. In the invasion of Iraq we had the goal of toppling a hostile government that we had been at war with for a decade. Now, we are fighting Islamist jihadis engaged in a struggle to build a Taliban-like state in the vacuum created by the fall of the Baathists.

The second conflict is directly connected to 9/11. We do not need to look to a German Iraq-al Qaeda connection to see this, we simply need to look at the facts as they exist on the ground right now.

What is the name the jihadis have taken on themselves in Iraq? Al Qaeda. Who have they pledged their allegiance to? Osama bin Laden. The three main insurgent groups in Iraq (al Qaeda, The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah, and The Islamic Army in Iraq) all share the same general political philosophy as the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. All are part of the network of global jihad. They are our enemies and it they who we are fighting in Iraq today.

We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, today. Unfortunately, many in the MSM do not understand the nature of the enemy in Iraq. To concede Iraq to these terrorist forces would be to create a nation state parrhia just like Afghanistan. Iraq would become the next place where large-scale jihadi training camps would operate openly.

We do not need to rewrite history to create a link between Iraq and 9/11. But if we wish to prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again, we must begin by making sure Iraq does not fall to the hands of al Qaeda terrorists who would love nothing more than to create another safe haven from which they could operate.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:45 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 966 words, total size 6 kb.

Scroll to end of post for update.

Is the 9/11 Report flawed? Yes. But that does not mean there was a conspiracy to keep information out of the report. It is the inherent nature of government reports, all government reports, to be flawed. If you don't want a flawed government report then you should not ask the government to report on anything.

Do the Able Danger revelations impeach the entire 9/11 Report so that nothing in the report should be believed? No. Of course not. It would be silly to have ever imagined that the report represented reality unbiased and unfiltered.

The 9/11 Report represents a consensus view on intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attrocities. Consensus views, by their very nature, are never complete and are never 100% accurate. They can't be. But the alternative to producing a consensus view is producing competing reports, each with their own set of biases, each with a different set of assumptions, and each with a different focus and emphasis.

So, when Captain Ed began speculating that there may actually have been operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, I was a bit taken aback. If I read him correctly, his reasoning is: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 2554 words, total size 15 kb.

Bet that headline got your attention. All right, my last long, long word on this for a while and we can go back to posting on GWOT stuff. Rusty, thanks for your indulgence.

You can't be a libertarian and support tyranny, nor can you support slavery. If all men are created equal before God, then slavery is an abomination and no man is naturally the subject of any other. A slave, or a subject, may have his own will, but he is not free to exercise it except insofar as it comports with his master's.

Likewise an addict may have a reason most of the time, and a complex inner life, but he is in the end a slave to those who will provide him with the means to satisfy his addiction. The worst cases--and you can spare me the accounts of the white collar friends of yours who appear to sail through life without a care snorting and shooting up everything in the Harrison Act--I said the worst cases, and there are far too many of them--will kill and rob and mortgage their house and blow the baby's college fund and sell their bodies to satisfy their masters. An addict, or for that matter someone tripping or stoned, is not a free man. In many cases, you can't even commit murder when you're high--under the law your "mental defect" can prevent you from reaching the mental state required to form the mens rea for intentional homicide. more...

Posted by: seedubya at 02:45 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1156 words, total size 7 kb.

Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:33 PM | Comments (100) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Yeah, but what's your position on bestiality? Llamas, excluded, of course.

Posted by: Editor at August 10, 2005 02:52 PM (adpJH)

2 The bottom line is, shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 10, 2005 03:06 PM (x+5JB)

3 Not in my mind. A free people must, by definition, be free to do harmful things.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:09 PM (JQjhA)

4 Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior. So, isn't it concievable that legalizing drugs (beyond alcohol) would come with an increase in criminal behavior? Or do you think that drug use would stay at its present levels?

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 03:15 PM (jPCiN)

5 No, I think drug use would rise--unfortunately. But most of the serious criminal behaviors associated with drug use have to do with their price. Their price is high because of the drug war. People need money to support their habits. Circular problem. But my stance on the drug war is not one built on cost-benefit analysis, which is how most pro or anti drug-war arguments are built. I believe it is a matter of personal liberty.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:22 PM (JQjhA)

6 "...shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?" THIS is the base idea from which fast food gets banned for being fattening and promoting obesity. And that "can" really stretches. Premarital sex, or sex without protection "can be harmful to [people]" via STDs, etc... So the Government needs to ban, crack down on, and prevent premarital sex? Is AIDS not as bad as a coke habit? Worse, better, difficult comparison? Oh, here's a brilliant one. Unprotected sex from behind (avoiding the "a" word) is particularly likely to transmit STDs. So we should really ban this form of behavior. How well do you see that going over? Also, how far a step is it from the government banning bad things; to the government mandating good things. A couple hours of exercise a week in half hour increments is good for you (duh). A government that mandates and enforces exercise from its citizenry because lack of exercise is bad for you would be obscenely stupid. People must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The alternatives are a nanny state that cares for you and dictates what you can and cannot do from cradle to grave; or a government that cherry picks some things as "bad enough to ban" and others that are not. Now the 3rd option (some banned, some aren't) relates to what we have now; but the line isn't well defined. The target of "too bad to allow" keeps moving on every issue, and the bans get arbitrary and foolish. Unless you have a very clear, very specific line you want drawn, I doubt you want to promote society going down this road. The line you've drawn in your initial statement bans fast food, smoking, drinking, premarital sex, bungee jumping, parachuting, etc. as "can be harmful" (adding easily avoidable, not required, and identifiable as harmful; as those are the requirements to try to get a law codified). Oh shoot, I completely forgot about mental anguish (hence not just physical harm, but mental harm as well). I mean, if we're promoting "wellness" in the citizenry we'll need to care for their mental and spiritual well being too, no? But I'll save that for later. This post is too long as is.

Posted by: GekkoBear at August 10, 2005 03:27 PM (X0NX1)

7 Harmful drugs are the same as cancer, smallpox, polio, etc: Get rid of them anyway you can.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 10, 2005 03:30 PM (CBNGy)

8 Oh wait a minute. Alcohol is potentially harmful. We should ban it. Ooops didn't we try that already.

Posted by: Howie at August 10, 2005 03:42 PM (D3+20)

9 Hmm...I'll clarify my own position on this later tonight. Rusty, would you prefer a new post or an update to this one? PS I'm very much for effective, mandatory treatment for drug users. It's pretty hard to get clean in prison. Fortunately that's mostly what we're doing.

Posted by: See-Dubya at August 10, 2005 04:17 PM (fUAK4)

10 I believe it is a matter of personal liberty. This really is the meat of the issue, but if the personal liberties of everyone else must be diminished to unacceptable levels so that an individual can maximize his, this is not a fair trade off. If the government in Amsterdam does not give its heroin junkies enough dope, they will commit crimes to get it. I won't even get into the issues of what it could do to the productivity of the country as a whole and how that can affect our personal liberties in the long run.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 04:32 PM (jPCiN)

11 Governments should only ban things that causes citizens to harm other citizens. Since most hard drugs causes the user to turn to crime to get them, then they should be banned. Using mary jane while driving should be, and I think most states, is banned.

Posted by: Butch at August 10, 2005 04:33 PM (Gqhi9)

12 I have been witness to the evil of Methamphetamine. I rejoice in every arrest, every lab bust, every conviction. It is cheap and even if made non-illegal, which is marginally different from being legal, it will be evil. Meth destroys humanity. Meth users should lose everything and everyone around them, and be isolated to remote islands with no hope for return. Meth producers should be shot on site.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 10, 2005 05:12 PM (Kv4B9)

13 Butch: that's the same sort of vagueness that would allow the government to disarm citizens, with the reason that "guns" harm other citizens. no thanks.

Posted by: dave at August 10, 2005 05:38 PM (DO6vD)

14 Hmmm... does all this mean your pro-choice?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 02:22 AM (REz6/)

15 "The Libertarians I hang around with try to pretend that drugs aren't all that bad. The usual drug that is called not bad is Marijuana. Marijuana is not bad, it--and by inference other drugs--ought to be legalized." Sounds like you don't know any libertarians, only libertines. Many libertarians hold the same view you do--i.e., legalize it, but when you do I'm still not touching it.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at August 11, 2005 08:26 AM (IsoyY)

16 Very good distinction, Unabrewer. One that I am aware of. But, seriously, if you've ever been to a Libertarian event you'll meet a whole lot of libertines. Prof, No. But that is because abortion is wrong because it kills a child. Homicide is not a valid choice under any libertarian definition. Unless you believe a baby in the womb is just an appendage of a woman--like a mole-then there is no moral justification for it. The real disagreement is the point at which a fetus becomes 'human' and the epistemology of 'life'.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 10:50 AM (JQjhA)

17 Good argument about legalizing drugs from a liberty point of view. However, however tough it is to get drugs legalized, how much tougher do you think it will be to pass the laws that put the cost of the consequences on the actor instead of on society? Crazy sex is already okay. You win, so to speak, there. AIDS funding is never going to be sufficient--ask the advocates--no matter how much it is. And you can talk, if you wish, about putting the costs of AIDS on actors, but you'll have a hard time, a really hard time, getting the costs off you and other taxpayers and on to the actors. Compared to that, or to rehab, getting drugs legalized is going to be a slam dunk. Not that it's easy, but telling people, you pissed in it, you drink it, is NOT going to happen.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at August 11, 2005 01:12 PM (tuope)

18 Unabrewer is right, and Rusty, your answer was unsatisfying. The first sentence of your post was "Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one." Could it really be true that you don't know or admire any libertarians that aren't libertines? Well, you know one now!

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 01:27 PM (XB4NN)

19 While I agree with your viewpoint, as a nation, we and our governments are as addicted to the drug war as the addicts are to their drugs. Many police departments would lose much of their federal funding and half to layoff significant numbers of officers. The war on drugs is an employment program for thousands of Americans with no other saleable skills.

Posted by: Timothy at August 11, 2005 01:30 PM (H+TEN)

20 I have a really novel theory about drugs. People take pain relievers to relieve pain. Who knew? Addiction or Self Medication? Heroin Genetic Discrimination A test for PTSD

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:32 PM (PRJ2z)

21 Drug prohibition is Republican Socialism. A price support mechanism for criminals. Any one learn anything from alcohol prohibition? Any one at all? Tell me what the #1 date rape drug in America is? I'll give you a clue. It is legal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:35 PM (PRJ2z)

22 Dr Rusty -- If, by "like," you mean "am opposed to laws prohibiting use of" then I agree with your characterization of the Dem, Libertarian, and Rep, points of view. The reason I say this is, I have actually *never* used any illegal drugs (and I'm in my late 30's), but I'm still against laws prohibiting use thereof.

Posted by: Me at August 11, 2005 01:37 PM (BL/U4)

23 I want a calling from the some resident Llama: is it an Instalanche whene some rental punk brings the funk? I stand athawart the Sitemeter and say "NAY!" (how's that..."athwart"...) You owe me a dollar.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:39 PM (kiH79)

24 And good sweet Jeebus must be crying, for these new colors, just, like, teh suck. You twirp adjunct.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:41 PM (kiH79)

25 Fatwa this!

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:45 PM (kiH79)

26 If people take pain relievers to relieve pain then the way to reduce the consequences of drug use is to relieve the people's fookin pain. How hard can it be? Almost every thing most people believe about drugs including the site owner is rank superstition. Drug use does not respond well to the usual enticements (i.e. demand is inelastic) because people in pain do not like giving up their pain relievers. Of course this directly contradicts the voodoo theory of addiction: drugs are the devil's spawn and they cause addiction. They get an evil hold on some people (why not all people - well you know - some people are more moral than others) and do not let go. I call this the Stupid Design theory of addiction. Wait, wasn't this what people of another era used to say about alcohol. Talk about recycling. Well, never mind.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:49 PM (PRJ2z)

27 Shouldn't the government be obligated to outlaw things which can be helpful to its citizenry? Like pain relievers for instance? Aspirin is the direct cause of 500 to 1,000 American deaths a year. Yet children can buy it. It is an outrage.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:57 PM (PRJ2z)

28 The one part of the problem that you are neglecting to address is that drugs are physiologically addictive, whereas other self-harming behavior is not. And things that are physiologically addictive are not a matter of choice-they are a matter of physical obligation. You are right; I don't care if someone else doesn't feel like getting up and going to work (i.e. doesn't choose to get up and go to work). But it would be different if something removed that individual's choice to get up and go to work (sickness, mental illness, physical incapacity, drug addiction). I, for instance, would be opposed to allowing the physically and mentally handicapped to starve to death simply because they don't choose to go to work. Libertarians may feel differently. So without choice, your libertarian hands off approach doesn't work. And yes, we have a tough time defining 'choice' (i.e. do people really 'choose' to eat to much? Should fast food be illegal? Alcohol?). On the margins, its tough to really define 'choice.' But outside of the margins, its not. If a healthy kid doesn't go to work and claims its because he doesn't want to, I'm comfortable accusing him of 'choice' and not being willing to fund his lifestyle 'choice.' At the other end, a heroin addict's 'choice' has been taken away from him. One way to stop this from happening is to just really really try to convince people not to try (and become addicted to) heroin, and then sell it anyway. Another way is to make heroin illegal. And our (my) society would be better without a whole lot of individuals addicted to heroin than with them. Steve

Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2005 02:09 PM (R+XcO)

29 You know meth is given to military pilots to enhance their performance. I would revel in seeing those guys busted like the common criminals they are. Besides prescribing the stuff interferes with the black market. See the recent Supreme Court decision in the Raich case for further details.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:13 PM (PRJ2z)

30 Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior. They are probably right that there is a correlation between drug use and criminal behavior. However, and repeat after me whenever you feel these regulatory urges coming on - "correlation is not causation." Any number of things could be causing the correlation, and I doubt very much that it is the psychotropic effects of whatever these people are ingesting. It could be that criminals have a lot of contact with the black market where drugs are sold. If this is a factor, then outlawing drugs actually contributes to their use by criminals. Dr. Shackleford, I think your average libertarian doesn't really believe drugs are harmless in all cases. Rather, they look at the drugs that society manages to tolerate (alcohol and tobacco), and conclude that many of your softer drugs, at least (pot being Exhibit A) are far less harmful than these.

Posted by: R C Dean at August 11, 2005 02:18 PM (ifq/U)

31 Steve, Physiological addiction is not a problem. Detox fixes that. The problem is that even after detox some people return to their drug habit. My theory: detox does not fix the pain. Only fixing the pain eliminates the desire for drugs. Well I guess Steve has brought us back to another devil theory of drugs. i.e. addicts are out of control. BTW Steve did you know that according to Dr. Lonnie Shavelson 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused as children? Perhaps instead of a war on drugs we need a war on child abuse? What are the odds of that?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (PRJ2z)

32 I was with the article right up to here: "If you knock some strange chick up in a moment of ecstasy inspired passion, it's your problem. I don't want to send you to jail, I don't want to send you to rehab, I'm not going to say that what you are doing is okay- it's not okay. It's just not my problem." I think it is your problem, my problem, everybody's problem. It's just not a problem that should be solved via coercive taxation and the legal system. This is the essential distinction between the libertarian who believes in voluntary solutions to societal problems and the atomistic radical individualist who doesn't, in practice, acknowledge that society exists and it solves problems whether or not the government gets involved. Government shouldn't get involved because government solutions to the problem have been demonstrated (over many years and many destroyed lives) to be very bad for this class of problems. We need experimentation and innovation to find better solutions, not a regression to some primeval state which never worked in the first place.

Posted by: TM Lutas at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (z/jms)

33 "But as Kurt Vonnegut said, arguing against anti-drug laws is like arguing against glaciers. Pointless. There will always be glaciers." So, why argue?" There will always be murders...so why have anti-murder laws? Bad argument there, Kurt, and an extremely poor rationale for drug legalization. Really the argument comes down to this: Personal liberty is a good thing and we should have lots of it. But with liberty comes responsibility. Drug use makes it impossible to exercise that responsibility. Thus, drug use should be illegal. Alcohol as the counter-argument? Alcohol is a weak drug (as available for purchase, anyways), and overconsumption can be punishable by law in several different ways. Other weak drugs are legal as well. Caffeine, nicotine. Nearly every narcotic drug by comparison gives its effects in a single dose. So no, there's really no good argument for drug legalization.

Posted by: Mike M at August 11, 2005 02:21 PM (vtiE6)

34 According to the US Justice Department the only drug that is known to be correlated with criminal behavior is - TADA - alcohol. We are going after the wrong drug! Ha Ha Ha. Drugs and Violence. Let me quote: “The stereotype is of the drug-crazed criminal,” said Robert Nash Parker, the lead investigator on the project. “The reality is something quite different.” Parker, a professor of sociology, conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on drugs, alcohol and violence. He said a survey of crime victims showed that more than one fourth of the assailants in violent crimes were reported by the victims to be under the influence of alcohol while fewer than 10 percent were under the influence of an illegal drug. The Presley Center study found that in cases of homicide, alcohol is “overwhelmingly” the drug most frequently mentioned.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:36 PM (PRJ2z)

35 !!Rock n Roll!! There is a good argument for drug legalization! This joints for you Mike M!

Posted by: gijoe at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (aja61)

36 Great post, you nailed it. Thanks for sharing. And thanks again for the Saddam torture post. That's a classic.

Posted by: TallDave at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (+zD27)

37 I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home? It is already well established in law that a person who commits a crime while under the influence of alcohol or other substance is still responsible for the crime (unless it can be shown that the person took that intoxicant without their knowledge or permission). This is not to say that I think drugs are safe, or a good idea. I personally have never used drugs and don't intend to. But for me to decide that another person should be jailed for the mere act of ingesting cocaine is immoral, because it infringes on their individual liberty. Their ingestion of cocaine, in and of itself, harms only them. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant. Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable. Purity and potency uncertainties only add to the risks of using drugs. Someone taking cocaine cannot be totally certain whether it's been cut with LSD (which alters the nature of the trip and makes it more dangerous), or baby powder (which alters its potency and makes taking a predictable dose impossible, thus making overdose more likely), or whatever. People should have the free choice to engage in this sort of vice, and the quality of the product should be reliable. I like margaritas, and I drink socially on occasion. I know that the alcohol I buy is exactly what it claims to be and will not contain wood alcohol, antifreeze, or any other contaminant that might increase the risk to my health. Drugs should have the same classification in our culture.

Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 02:40 PM (Xi2ZE)

38 I have one question. Can anybody point me to 1 instance in the history of man where a prohibition has worked and has not created a criminal underground to take advantage of it. Just one. Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome. Spend the money instead for treatment on demand. The ones that dont want treatment...well Darwin will prevail and if the drugs are available no one will get hurt except the one responsible for taking the drugs. By the by I'm a somewhat conservative republican.

Posted by: GC at August 11, 2005 02:43 PM (oer0z)

39 Mike M. Alcohol weak drug? If a new drug it would be a schedule II narcotic and only available to doctors in emergency cases where no other alternative can be found. Such as antifreeze poisoning. Too much booze can render you unable to stand or walk this is called alcohol poisoning. And yes you can die from it. What usually happens is you are so passed out that you don't notice that you jsut thew up and you breath stomach acid into your lungs and drown in your own vomit. Pretty good stuff huh. Weak drug my ass it's the best and most powerful. Inject you a few ccs of everclear and then come nd tell me it's weak. Heck just kill a pint of old crow that shojld do it and if it don't you my friend are an alcoholic. Nothing liek some drunk acting like booze is water.

Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 02:44 PM (D3+20)

40 Mike M, There really is no good argument for alcohol legalization. Or aspirin legalization for that matter. Drugs Kill. M'Kay? Some kill more than others. BTW There really is no good argument for food legalization. You eat too much it can kill you. Not to mention choking deaths. Food needs to be administered only under a doctor's supervision. Ever see a food addict? Truly disgusting. In fact all nutrients should be administereed by IV under a doctors supervision. Let us eliminate those needless deaths. Especially of children.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:48 PM (PRJ2z)

41 hmmm...i see one problem with your position, Dr. Shackleford. Meth labs? could it possibly become so cheap that that make-your-own equivalenced the legal market version? Meth labs poison their immediate environment, poison the kids of the lab owners or renters, poison the firemen or policemen called in to clean up, poison the neighbors. will you be able to get a "brewer's license" for making some quantity of meth for your own personal family consumption? will there be meth lab inspectors that insure that you are making it safely?

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 02:58 PM (JREvR)

42 GC, Only 30 years? National heroin prohibition has been in effect since 1914. Over 90 years. I guess we have not had enough experience with heroin prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough. Pot prohibition has been in effect since 1937 (with a short hiatus during WW2 - hemp rope and twine don't you know). I guess we have not had enough experience with pot prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:02 PM (PRJ2z)

43 matoko, We used to know what the answer to meth labs was. The answer in the days when meth was legal were called drug stores. Ever hear of them? In those days no one ever heard of meth labs. I wonder why? Capitalism may have had something to do with it. You know. Price and availability.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:06 PM (PRJ2z)

44 This thread is just great. Superstition abounds. Blaming drugs for the evils of drug prohibition. Nothing new. We used to blame alcohol for the evils of alcohol prohibition. Watch an episode of the "Untouchables" to get the flavor. People are just as dumb as they ever were. Which is confirmation of Einstein's famoous dictum: The most abundant element in the universe is stupidity.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:11 PM (PRJ2z)

45 The best written work I ever read about drugs and the law was written by Gorge Jonas for Saturday Night Magazine in the early nineties. He basically made the very honest argument that drug use would rise if we legalised them and that this rise in use would increase costs to society in terms of more individuals battling addiction BUT that this price is well worth paying if you look at what we get in return in terms of personal responsibility, freedom from the state and the elimination of THE MAJOR SOURCE of REVENUE for criminals. We would be better off both individually and collectively if we decriminalised drugs and regulated them through fines and civil court proceedings as opposed to criminal courts. Let the tort system deal with the issues drug use creates. Unfortunately the DEA is a terrible vested interest and many Republican politicians are addicted to the power that the fear of drugs creates in parents. It is so easy to play the demagog when the voters reward you so.

Posted by: Northern Oberver at August 11, 2005 03:13 PM (L0dY/)

46 WRT Meth... It's nasty stuff, but there's one thing that people don't consider. If high-grade cocaine and amphetamine were available at the drug store for a reasonable price (as they once were) who in hell would do Meth? Meth was invented as a result of the drug war. It would not EXIST if cleaner, better quality recreational drugs were legal. Using it as an example of why we should spend our LE and judicial resources on the "drug war" is truly missing the point.

Posted by: Barry at August 11, 2005 03:17 PM (lxp2D)

47 BTW any one know why cocaine was made illegal? There were lots of scare stories in newspapers about cocainized black men raping white women. In a word - racism. Pot - that was all about cheap Mexican labor. Opiates? cheap Chinese labor. Oh yeah - taking advantage of whie women under the influence. Drug War History

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:19 PM (PRJ2z)

48 Drugs do not cause addiction (they can cause habituation). Chronic pain causes chronic drug use.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:24 PM (PRJ2z)

49 "Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior." If drug use is a criminal act the link between drug use and criminal behaviour is 100%. If drug use is not a criminal act then drug use related crime would fall by 100%. Meantime, if you drive under the influence, abuse your children or rip off corner stores to support your habit I say, "Bring back the lash!" Ahh, the lash.

Posted by: Flea at August 11, 2005 03:27 PM (/D/GV)

50 There is one ironclad rule about drugs. Kind of a Gresham's Law. The harder the enforcement the harder the drugs. And the more direct the administration methods. People inject heroin because it is too expensive to eat or snort.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:28 PM (PRJ2z)

51 I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive. Some feel the carryover into harming society gives government to responsibility to become involved. Others disagree and have good arguments to support their disagreement. Such arguments, pro and con, are heard even in the issue of seatbelts and none have been conclusively superior to the others. One argument does support a measure of government regulation and that is that children, none of whom are always under their parents control, make bad decisions that can be very harmful. One such decision is to become addicted to drugs; a result that can easily last a lifetime.

Posted by: willis at August 11, 2005 03:31 PM (qJ2gx)

52 From 1920 to 1933 there was a direct correlation between alcohol and criminal behavior. Since 1933 that correlation has been somewhat attenuated. I wonder why? Must be a change in diet or the water.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:34 PM (PRJ2z)

53 willis, Drugs are destructive only if you believe that people relieving their pain chemically is destructive. So do you favor outlawing aspirin which kills 500 to 1,000 Americans every year and can be bought over the counter by children? BTW Bayer Heroin was for 20 years an over the counter drug. How did America survive? Tincture of cannabis was in the pharmacopia for hundreds of years until 1937. Why didn't it destroy the country? Especially since there was nothing to prevent individuals from growing their own. During the age of sail governments sometimes passed laws making people grow hemp. How did humanity survive it?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:41 PM (PRJ2z)

54 Oh, here comes the meth meme:here at last is the one true evil drug that will drag society down the toilet. Every ten years or so the professional drug warriors tout a new one: heroin in the fifties. pot and LSD in the sixties, cocaine in the seventies, crack in the eighties, and ecstasy in the nineties. Tobacco all the time. They even tried to stir up an early meth scare circa 1991; remember "ice"? The propoganda piles up and suddenly everyone thinks they have a new idea. No wonder nose rings are so popular.

Posted by: Brett at August 11, 2005 04:15 PM (Iymzh)

55 M. Simon: You talk so much, and persuade so little. How about producing some statistical evidence that "people only take drugs to relieve their pain," or abandon that monotonous assertion. Perhaps your definition of "pain" extends to "the agony of having to get out of bed and face the day working at a dead-end job because you chose not to learn marketable skills," in which I could see your point but am not persuaded. Did anyone claim that the presence of hemp would destroy humanity? Where did that straw man come from? While I personally support drug deregulation if coupled with the Left's abandonment of taxpayer funding of universal health care, you are starting to persuade me to reconsider. The worst side effect of whatever it is you're taking appears to be the loss of ability (if ever you had it) to construct rational, persuasive arguments in support of an easy-to-defend thesis.

Posted by: Jonathan at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (OWbi0)

56 I thought the Dutch had already tried this. All it has done is made the situation worse. Now they're backtracking. Making All drugs legal, there is nothing to stop them from being used on the corner across from the neighbourhood school. Or in your next door neighbours house. The abuse of alcohol in this country is already a big problem, lets make drugs as easily accessable from the nearest convenient store. So what will folks be arrested for when abusing driving, DUI for alcohol, will the charges for driving under the influence of drugs be the same? Our society is abusive enough as it, let's not make it any easier for the pie holes to abuse it any faster or easier. You're talking about sliding down the toilet quicker than we're already going.

Posted by: quark2 at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (hvepP)

57 The real problem for society with drug abuse/use is the problem that comes along with any other self-destructive behaviour: the direct costs to our over-coddling society. Put it another way, I will support the legalization of drugs right after you remove soceity's subsidization of the consequences of drug use (and other stupid or silly behaviour), meaning: Get rid of Medicare! No more welfare! No subsidized housing! Seriously, since I'm sure that libertarians are also against these programs, all they have to do is eliminate them and I will be with them 100% on the drug thing. The problem with our quasi-socialist society is that the gov't has a financial stake in your health and well being, which leads to even more stupid government over-reach, all in the name of protecting their "investment" in your carcass - the war on tobacco, helmet and seatbelt laws etc.

Posted by: holdfast at August 11, 2005 05:15 PM (jvO9O)

58 GC said: Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome. I believe that is, in fact, the popular definition of "stupid".

Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 06:04 PM (Xi2ZE)

59 I'm agnostic on the drug legalisation/keep them illegal debate. I will say from personal experience that few law enforcement officers like the way the system, is set up now. Between the horrible waste of time involved in messing with small time users and the massive amount of money that is available for corrupting police, prosecutors and judges, all we know is that what we're doing isn't working. In the Dept I retired from, about the only way to get arrested for 'recreational' amounts was if we just wanted to pile another charge on someone because (s)he was an asshole. Other than that, if the bosses needed more dope busts, we'd make more dope busts. If, instead, they wanted us to crack down on red light runners, okay, fine. We did what kept the bosses off our asses, the bosses did what kept the County Commisioners and newspapers off theirs. I'd like to point out, though, that the most effective drug treatment programs out there have exactly the same success rate as do the self-help groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. The self-help groups cost the taxpayer nothing. Me? I have no answers. I just wish I were smart enough to be like the people on both sides of this argumant and who are absolutely sure that I were the one who is right.

Posted by: Peter at August 11, 2005 06:32 PM (ywZa8)

60 And is alchohol a drug? Everybody must believe in something and I believe I'll have another drink.

Posted by: blackminorca at August 11, 2005 07:31 PM (ywZa8)

61 What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!? You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes. In the name of Liberty(tm) and Freedom(tm) you would deny the most basic freedoms to people and communities everywhere - to affect the nature of the towns and cities they live in. Do you think that every-Mom and every-Pop will feel free and liberated when criminal scum are selling drugs to the every-Kids on every street corner in every-Town without fear of sanction. (not to mention all the porn and other miseries you'd inflict on us, our fraught struggling families and our delicate and vulnerable kids. You'd sell us into slavery just as sure as the Commies would). Genuinely smart conservatives know we live in an imperfect world; there are no perfect answers; there are no flawless political theories; and real freedom and liberty are a constant balancing act between the freedom of people acting as individuals to control their lives and the freedom of groups of people to influence their communities. If drugs become accepted and assimilated into our lives and cultures then the people in their humble wisdom, via their representatives, can vote to make them legal or not on a case-by-case basis. Many communities may be reaching this point as regards Marijuana, and indeed the case could well be made that the Federal Gov't should butt out and leave this all to the states (even here in Australia from whence I write). But I think the grand Libertarian Theory-Of-Everything can safely be chucked in the trash can marked 'failed political theories of the 20th Century'.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 09:31 PM (rqQ22)

62 I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive. I think you just answered you own assertion. "Individuals have a right to be self-destructive," and--and this is big, folks, so don't miss it--their problem is not my problem. They're the ones responsible, right? Leave it up to them. With regard to drug-related crime, it is almost all related to the problem of getting drugs in the first place--stealing, fencing, even an occasional murder is the result. After all, drugs are heinously expensive (being illegal and all). What, on the other hand, is the violence caused by using drugs? If you're speaking of alcohol, the damage is vast. But if you're speaking of heroin, well--you can have a well-behaved heroin addict working in your store, helping customers and all, and never know it. As long as he gets his hit today (to prevent the awful consequences of withdrawal) he'll be perfectly fine. One the third hand (?--I've lost count) what about the chronic pain patient who can't get the drugs he needs because his doctors are all scared spitless of the DEA and won't prescribe? Well, they suffer needlessly. And those fortunate few who do get the meds they need for chronic pain are incredibly grateful. As long as they take them as prescribed there will be no problems at all, although if a patient makes a mistake and does not refill his meds when due, he may discover that he is indeed physically dependent on them. But that's a small price to pay. Believe me. I'm that patient. The drug war creates crime unecessarily due to the high price of illegal substances, and people will steal and sometimes kill to get them. It also artificially inflates the price of the product, further spurring crime. The drug war makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a chronic pain paatient to get what he needs. And what good does it do? Next to nothing. Ending the drug war, on the other hand, ends the artificially high prices caused by the war and therefore ends the crime. Period. And perhaps more importantly, doctors are free to prescribe whatever they think is appropriate for their patients, DEA be hanged.

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:02 PM (XB4NN)

63 Um, your position IS the libertarian position. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has been overtaken by druggies, pacifists, libertines, and hedonists. But you shouldn't confuse the two. Your position is exactly libertarian.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at August 11, 2005 10:08 PM (ru0sP)

64 What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!? You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes. To quote Heinlein, "the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." You can forget all other labels--this summarizes it all. We libertarians fall into the latter category. And we're not nearly as arrogant as you seem to think. And it's the evidence of our eyes that convinces us, day by day, of the validity of our professions.

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:13 PM (XB4NN)

65 In order for government to be "moral" it must stand by to allow people to become addicted, because during those first stages of addiction, they are still able to satisfy the libertarian ideal? You have a problem with the government intervening to stop a 23-year-old mother from taking meth once a week so long as she can keep changing her baby's diapers?

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at August 11, 2005 11:23 PM (4BysG)

66 Fair go, American mates! I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything. Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government? It's particularly galling because, with your close association with conservatives, you know that old-fashioned out-dated, trial-and-error, muddle-through conservatism produces vastly superior outcomes, but it just isn't gosh-darned 'elegant' enough for you! (isn't that right?) I've seen the effect of hard drugs on friends and loved ones. I'm old enough to have known a time when law enforcement was much stricter. Your theories sound enchanting, that's the most hateful thing of all. God protect us from yet another great sounding but viciously destructive socio-political theory.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 11:46 PM (rqQ22)

67 Daryl Herbert, What if there is no such thing as addiction? What if it is just people in pain taking pain relievers? Addiction or Self Medication? The idea of "addiction" is superstition.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:48 PM (X4/+i)

68 In this new world of legalized drugs, who do you see as the manufacturers? Who will take on the responsibility of producing a product that meets government standards for safety? Oh, you say there won't be standards? Then mark off 'safer' drugs as an argument for legalization. What will the cost of drugs be when you factor in liability insurance for the manufacturer? No liabilty, you say? I've got a million hungry lawyers that beg to differ. Sounds like criminal elements and Joe down the street likely will remain the major producers of drugs. So much for putting the drug cartels out of work. Buy them at the local 7-Eleven? Another million lawyers waiting to pin liability on anyone selling a dangerous product. So much for putting the drug dealers out of business. With all recreational drugs now legal, what about the FDA and prescription drugs? Why should there be laws requiring prescriptions? If those laws stay in place, just classify your miracle cure as a recreational drug and you are in business. Just need a slick commercial and a Swiss Bank account and you are set. Welcome to the wild wild west of medical quackery, brought to you courtesy of drug legalization. As others in this thread have stated, as long as we are a nanny state, personal responsibilty when it comes to drugs is a myth. So much for your drug use only being your problem. I don't believe for a second that our current system is perfect, or even good. I am open to debate. I would appreciate those suggesting this major change provide a bit more substantive arguments that look a bit more deeply at just how society would change if drug legalization occurs.

Posted by: FRNM at August 11, 2005 11:54 PM (Pkcb7)

69 Kip, The idea of "addiction" is superstition. Heroin Genetic Discrimination It is you "drugs cause addiction" folks who are doing the ugly experiment. Think logically. What would you expect to happen if the problem was your keeping people in pain from their pain relievers? Most people who try drugs do not get "addicted". How does your theory of drugs explain that?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:59 PM (X4/+i)

70 FRNM, I'm with you. Nothing can be done. We will need to keep the criminal subsidy (prohibition) in place forever. We just need to accept the 2,000 innocents a year killed in turf wars. I also note that legalizing alcohol in 1933 is a complete failure. How To Put an End to Drug Users

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:10 AM (X4/+i)

71 Kip, I don't know what it is about super geniuses. I do know that folks like you are in thrall to a superstition: "drugs cause addiction". OK. So tell me about food addicts, sex addicts, exercise addicts, gambling addicts, etc. Genetic Discrimination Big Mac - heroin attack

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:16 AM (X4/+i)

72 As it happens this debate is going on in my home state of Victoria (Australia) right now. As best I can tell the argument goes like this. "Our kids should have the right to experiment with 'party' drugs, because they tell us it's fun and to deny our precious darlings the right to any indulgence would be grossly unsophisticated, besides we like the odd snort ourselves, anyway the percentage of them who are harmed by drugs is way under half, and we can afford expensive rehab for those few anyway, and the worst thing of all would be for our kids to get criminal records (yeek, how lower class). Apparently there are 'other' kids in 'other' suburbs who don't know how to handle hard drugs, but we don't move in those circles, and we could hardly draft laws on the basis of what's best for people of that sort or we might find ourselves back in the stone age, or the 1950s (whichever came first). "Some neaderthals also seem to think it would lead to an increase in criminal activity, but they don't seem to understand the pure logic that when nothing is illegal, no crime can take place, hence abolishing these laws would be a significant step towards a completely crime free society." - signed, a bunch of rich lawyers and academics.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:25 AM (rqQ22)

73 holdfast, What if drug use is not self destructive behavior? What if it is just a matter of people in pain taking pain relievers? Cannabinoids - the Key to many Pains? Capitalism, Pain and the War on Drugs PTSD Pot Alcohol & Substance Abuse Aftermath Police and PTSD The Pain Enforcement Administration

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:29 AM (X4/+i)

74 kip, So tell me: what causes addiction? Without an answer to that question trying to solve the problem is impossible. When I design an object without the knowledge of what causes stress failue, I rarely get the design right. It is too heavy or too light. So how can you control the drug problem without knowledge of what the real problem is? What I see is similar to how the Black Plague was dealt with in the Middle Ages. People in masks going around trying to scare off the problem. Voodoo. We have used the "drugs cause addiction" model to formulate policy for over 100 years. We are not meeting with any significant success. Perhaps the model is wrong. If it is chronic pain that causes chronic drug use then it is the prohibitionist who is the criminal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:40 AM (X4/+i)

75 I can accept (from the modest amount I've read), that your Federal Gov't has greatly overstepped its powers as regards drug enforcement (and a great many other things by many accounts), and I do think doctors should be left more or less unmolested to prescribe as they see fit without fear of criminal prosecution (except in the most extreme cases, eg. where someone has died) - loss of license would be punishment enough for most unethical behaviour. But when you start playing with semantics, comparing Big Mac 'addiction' to Heroin addiction, and trying to define real problems away - problems that are not just words, that are heart-breaking and disgusting realities I have seen with my own eyes - well, sorry to say it, it makes you sound like a socialist. They play these kind of word games all the time you know, I'm long past being fooled by them. When a word doesn't exist - eg. it gets debased or defined away - the problem doesn't go away. You just make us invent another term to describe it and we end up on the same merrygoround the PC-word-ists have been annoying us with these last 30+ years.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:50 AM (rqQ22)

76 Jonathan, You ask for evidence. I have presented links to articles which have many links to the evidence. The evidence is not statistical. It is medical. This kind of trauma coupled with that kind of genetics causes the implantation of pain/fear memories which are relieved by drug use. I can tell you the main organ in the brain involved: the amygdala. I can tell you that the CB1 receptor is part of it. I can tell you about endorphin receptors. I can link the various "kinds" of addiction to the same brain chemical pathways. I can tell you how to predict who is susceptable to long term addiction problems. I can tell you how to predict who will "get over it". I can tell you why 20% of the folks returning from Iraq will have long term PTSD problems. I can tell you why for 80% the problem will be short lived. I can even show (in a general way) why 5% of those with long term problems will "get over it" every year without intervention. I can even show why "drug rehhab" as currently practiced is just for show. Much better than statistical evidence. However, as is evidenced by your comment you have read none of it. I'm sorry, under those circumstances, there is nothing I can do to help.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:00 AM (X4/+i)

77 Kip Watson, Have you read the "Big Mac" article? I show how food, sex, exercise, and heroin fill the endorphin receptors. In other words I have a unified theory of addiction. I'd like to see some rational counter claim instead of just an exclamation: "it can't possibly be so". However, that is exactly what superstition is. The substitution of belief for evidence. I have evidence. What have you got?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:09 AM (X4/+i)

78 Kip, I am not redefining addiction. I'm dealing with specific organs, chemicals, and receptors. i.e. science. I have showed you my science. Please show me yours.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:17 AM (X4/+i)

79 I have shown in my articles that PTSD is the #1 cause of what is commonly refered to as "addiction". i.e. people with severe pain/fear memories take drugs for relief. So far the only counter to that assertion is the "drugs cause addiction" model. Of the two models which is the more predictive? If dugs cause addiction why doesn't every one who tries drugs get addicted? My model answers that question. The "drugs cause addiction" model can't answer that question except to talk about "addictive personalities". What is an addictive personality? What traits do such personalities have in common? The "drugs cause addiction" folks have no answer to that question. I know. I have asked professionals in the field. Lots of them. However, I'm willing to be educated. Tell me what is an "addictive personality" and what traits such personalities have in common. And please. I do not want a theory that explains 50%, I want one that explains 100% as my theory does. In the general population 20% have a genetic makeup that makes them susceptable to long term PTSD. Of that 20% about 1/2 get sufficient trauma to get a PTSD problem. Of vets returning from Iraq it seems that 100% of that 20% are getting sufficiently traumatized to cause long term problems. This is not just academic for me. I want to understand the problem so we can deal with it. I want to look in the right direction so we can advance the science and either ease the pain or find a cure. Read "Aftermath" and "Police and PTSD". That will give you a handle on causes. Read "Addiction or Self Medication?", "Heroin", and "Genetic Discrimination" for some of the science. Read "Big Mac...." for the unified theory of addiction.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:44 AM (X4/+i)

80 So much of the problem is moralized. It is not a moral problem in the way that is commonly understood. It isnot about lack of self control except in the most extreme sense. If you were in a lot of pain and found something that gave you relief, how much self control would you have in relation to that something. In general, not a lot.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:58 AM (X4/+i)

81 Goodness me, Mr Simon, you really are the proof of the pudding! - You dismiss the wisdom of generations of conservatives (going right back the Opium War) as 'superstition' because it doesn't jibe with the half omelette of scrambled facts you currently have on your plate. I must say, think that in itself proves the arrogance of those who believe they have pure scientific theory behind them. And isn't making major policy decisions based on a few medical trials or scientific theories exactly the 'petri dish' situation I described earlier? - You present as momentous the obvious fact that many people are drawn into hard drug addiction from emotional or physical pain, as if that somehow makes the hell of addiction acceptable, or not even a problem. Difficult though such pain is, hard drug addiction in the medium or long term will do nothing but make things infinitely worse. (although I will say that the unwillingness of many doctors to prescribe strong narcotics when warranted by severe pain is without doubt a contributing factor in some cases of addiction and does need to be addressed.) - You hold fast to the belief that a tubby fellow who can't lay off tasty burgers is the exact twin of a tortured being whose life and soul are evaporating due to the horrible effects of hard drugs, simply because doctors can detect the same brain chemicals in both individuals. As if the plain truth, that stands before us in pain and beyond our means to help, is suddenly eclipsed by a few readings on a computer printout that may or may not mean anything at all. Not wishing to be personal, I wonder if you are someone with the beginnings of a drug problem and one heck of a case of denial - if so, please open your eyes, sir, what awaits you is simply not worth it. If not, you really are the living proof that only someone as smart as you clearly are could be so dumb!

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 02:00 AM (rqQ22)

82 Quark, It is true the liberal Dutch have a problem. 17% of the Dutch folk have tried drugs in their lifetime. In America we are doing much better. Only 40% of Americans have tried drugs. We have been trying to explain it to the Dutch for years. They just don't get it.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:10 AM (X4/+i)

83 Kip, There was a lot of "evidence" during the black plague that men in masks could ward off the plague. Every body believed that. Well enough to get them to pay people in masks to walk the streets. So far you have presented no science. I have. I have said that the endorphin receptor is the common thread between food, exercise, sex, and heroin addictions. You can actually falsify my data. Is that endorphin connection valid? So far all I have seen from you is: "everybody knows", "it is common knowledge", and "history shows". That is what we call in science: superstition. Where is your science? What are the connections? What are the receptors? Where are they located? What is the genetics? What are the chemicals involved? How did the systems evolve? What are their origins? As we look deeper into the science those questions can be answered. Will "history shows" fill in any of those blanks? What history shows is that the desire for drugs is pretty inelastic (i.e. even high penalties do not deter core users). Can you explain that? I can. I can explain it by science - no moral theory required. My lack of a moral theory of drug use offends a lot of people. I think it is a medical question. Many seem to prefer it as a moral question. To each his own I guess.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:32 AM (X4/+i)

84 "I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything." - Kip Watson Hrmm. I kinda have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, gamily, friends, and neighbors in their less-than-delightfully-old and never ending quest to prove that if you make something illegal, stamp your footsies and wish REAL HARD - you can really really make prohibiton work *this* time. Really you can. Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government?

Posted by: Ironbear at August 12, 2005 07:14 AM (zR442)

85 back to meth...the only way other drugs will supplant it is if they are cheaper. government subsidized cocaine prices? people will make their own if there is a profit. and you still have to deal with the whole grow-your-own, make-your-own cottage industry if controlled substances are legalized. i don't see a problem with grow-your-own cocoa or marijuana, but make-your-own meth is scary.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 10:24 AM (gNc4O)

86 Why are drugs illegal in the US? Is it because they alter the mind, and can influence one to make poor decisions? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol is legal. Is it because of the social cost? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol and tobacco are legal. Is it because drugs are harmful to one's body? No, that cannot be it. Alchol and tobacco are legal. Can it be because of 'addiction'? No, that cannot be it. Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are legal. If you claim that drugs are illegal because of any of the reasons I've outlined, you should be crusading against alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as well. I haven seen no evidence of that in this thread. If none of the reasons I've presented are 'the reason', what is?

Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:39 AM (deU1G)

87 Matoko: Please inform me of the make-your-own cottage alcohol industry. Alcohol is far more cheaply and safely made in the home than meth is. Yet, there isn't a large black market in alcohol. Why not?

Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:43 AM (deU1G)

88 I won't even bother trying to respond to any specific comments posted above - not that I wouldn't like to, but there are too many to keep track of. So, you'll just have to be content with my own take on drug legalization... which is as follows: It seems to me that America's drug war is at least as much about our cultural hang-ups over drugs as anything else. Several people here have commented on the absurdity of drug prohibition while alcohol is legal. Well, you can chalk that up entirely to a cultural/historical accident. Alcohol as a recreational drug has been part of the human experience since basically the dawn of mankind, and with the exception of Prohibition has generally been accepted as such by Western civilization, in spite of its well-documented legion of attendant social and medical ills.* Marijuana and other rec drugs, on the other hand, are relative Johnny-come-latelies to the rec drug scene, and have therefore proven much easier for drug warriors to demonize, even though they may or may not actually be more harmful than alcohol - hence the aforementioned cultural hang-ups. The same hang-ups, of course, work against any effort to legalize these drugs, even for medical purposes such as with marijuana. Even if it became generally accepted tomorrow that marijuana has legitimate medical purposes, that would likely not be enough to satisfy most cultural conservatives who simply cannot get past their hang-ups about the "wacky weed". Most would presumably favor promoting medical alternatives to cannabis instead, or at the very least alternative methods of ingesting the active ingredients in cannabis other than rolling it up as a joint and smoking it. Of course none of this even covers the larger Puritan, anti-hedonistic streak of American culture that isn't even that comfortable with the idea of legal alcohol**, much less a whole smorgasbord of legal rec drugs made generally available (not to mention stuff like legalized sodomy, pornography, gambling etc. which are already here but beyond the scope of this discussion). The upshot of all this is quite simple: The day mainstream American culture gets over its hang-ups about drugs that are presently illegal is the day when drug prohibition is doomed - and not a day sooner. *Indeed, I might point out that alcohol, and only alcohol, has its American legal status enshrined in nothing less than the U.S. Constitution itself, specifically the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition and explicitly makes alcohol regulation the purview of the states. **Believe it or not, the Women's Christian Temperance Movement and other like-minded organizations do still exist in the U.S. today. There's even a minor political party called the Prohibition Party that not only wants to bring back alcohol prohibition but extend it to tobacco, gambling and such.

Posted by: Joshua at August 12, 2005 12:44 PM (5Xc3J)

89 Hmmmmm! Mention drugs and 89 responses. Is this somehow reflective on our bloggers. Matoko: We have meth labs all over the rivers down here. The popular way is on houseboats. Keep them moving no smell. The law comes dump evidence overboard. Apparently, they buy sudafed a cold medicine over the counter at Wal-Mart. Just send in several people and all go to different registers during busy hours. I used to have a liquid fertizer tank containing ammonium nitrate at the end of one of my pastures. The sheriff told me they caught teenagers stealing it one night and confessed that they were making crystal meth with it. I never knew it was missing. Interesting what you can learn on the Jawa Report.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 10:12 PM (CBNGy)

90 I'm against restrictions on all drugs, including prescription meds. I'm in my early twenties and have never done drugs or even been offered any (sheltered upbringing...) but I was treated like some sort of slimy gutter junkie when I was practically dying of wisdom-tooth pain and tried to get my second vicodin prescription filled. It was terribly humiliating. I'm an adult, and fully capable of making my own decisions. Neither my government nor my pharmacist has to save me from myself.

Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 01:42 AM (7OhrX)

91 M. Simon: Are you saying cocaine causes black men to rape white women but doesn't cause white men to rape black women. Ha, Ha. Just gets crazier and crazier around here. Sarah two last names: When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind. I use the drug alcohol. As everyone knows I am living proof that it affects your ability to spell.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 07:53 AM (8MCDk)

92 "When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind." What, you mean when dementia sets in? Sure. Maybe I'll also become firmly convinced that I'm a duck.

Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 09:30 AM (7OhrX)

93 Anne> I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home? > ... Anne> Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable. If you read Anne's post and did NOT IMMEDIATELY SEE the problem. then YOU are part of the problem. The problem of idiots who do not think. Let me spell it out for the simpleminded. Legalizing pot has no effect whatsoever on the sale of harder drugs, the ones that do much more serious damage. Those gunshots that wake you up at 2 A.M.? Those shots aren't being fired by two cancer patients fighting over the last hit of 'medical' pot in the city, you moron! And yet, idiot after idiot denounces the 'evil' of drug laws, while slyly talking only about the bad effects of pot, which are far less serious than most drugs. Show some honesty and tell us about how wonderful it would be to legalize the wonderful aspects of crack, you charlatins! If you only want pot legalized, 90% of the arguments against drug laws are off limits to you, including violence, swelling jail populations, and all those other clever little tricks where you blame the laws for the actions of the lawbreakers. Got it?

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 13, 2005 11:24 PM (mcKoW)

94 Ryan Waxx, About 70% of female heroin users were sexually molested as children. Give you a clue? Drugs are a symptom. So if as seems likely only people in extreme pain take pain killers (and cocaine IS a pain killer) then what is the problem? Heroin

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:35 AM (9CsiD)

95 I'm 60, have children, and have changed my mind. I used to believe in just pot legalization. Now I believe in legalizing all drugs and disbanding the DEA. Perhaps they could put the effort into counter terrorism say. Or tracking down pedophiles. Why pedophiles get probation

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:42 AM (9CsiD)

96 greyrooster, I didn't say that. Newspapers around 1910 said that. It is the usual moral panic bit. The next crack epidemic could be rock 'n roll. No wait, that has already been done to death. Did you know meth use was in decline well before the latest round of scare stories?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:56 AM (9CsiD)

97 Sarah two names. If you allow or advocate the using of hard drugs around your children you will be a duck. Leader of a flock that runs around quacking all day.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:40 AM (CBNGy)

98 Lots of good info on this subject. It's Sunday. I'm in my own home. I will now indulge in my favorite drug. A beer on the porch with some friends. I know its against the law. I just can't help myself.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:52 AM (CBNGy)

99 M. Simon, OK, I'll bite. If a fixed fraction of humanity gets more relief from their pain with illegal drugs than the rest of us, how come 40% of Americans have tried them but only 17% of Dutch?

Posted by: Jeremy at August 14, 2005 02:41 PM (uGQet)

100 Because being a consummate liar is a necessary prerequisite to getting a job at a poll company?

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 15, 2005 06:08 AM (taayn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My head just exploded.

I was joking about this here a while back. But John Tierney at the New York Times is serious.

Jeff Harrell is pretty hacked off, too. Don't go here if you mind the sailor-talk.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman, who actually studies this stuff, has more fact-filled (though less rhetorically satisfying) thrashing of Tierney's folly.

UPDATE II: Rusty responds in Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War

Posted by: seedubya at 11:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Is it just me, or is Eleanor Clift retarded? So let me get this straight: every single candidate that Markos 'Screw Them' Zuniga raises money for, including Paul Hackett, has lost, yet Eleanor Clift thinks that Kos is somehow an effective Democratic strategist?

Ok, maybe she's not retarded, but at a minimum she is the poster child of the partisan Washington media. Note in this Newsweek article, written by Clift, that the Washington Post sent no less than three reporters to swoon over Kos at a left-wing blogger forum (hat tip: Meme Random). That's right, three reporters! And to cover what? The fact that Kos endorsed a candidate that almost won in an off-year low-turnout election? The last time I checked, almost didn't count in politics. Hand grenades and horse-shoes, yes. Politics, no.

Here's how Clift describes serial loser Kos:

Leading the charge was Markos Moulitsas, founder of the progressive Daily Kos, which attracts hundreds of thousands of daily visits and is considered one of the most popular political blogs on the Internet. For Democrats desperate to find their way back to a winning coalition, Moulitsas, 33, has emerged as one of the most creative thinkers and activists in the progressive ranks. The Post team, along with reporters from other national publications and scores of political operatives, had come to get a glimpse of the future.

Moulitsas is opposed to the Iraq war but says that isnÂ’t what drew him to Hackett.

“It’s not about ideology, pro-war, antiwar, it makes no difference,” he insisted. “In the online world, we need Democrats to stand up, not be afraid of Republicans, not be afraid of the right-wing noise machine … We don’t care about ideology. We care that you stand up for the party and don’t run scared.”

I get the feeling it took every ounce of self-restraint Eleanor had to keep herself from throwing her panties on to the stage at Markos.

The boyishly slight Moulitsas responded with an engaging smile, saying that he wished he could claim he was a grand visionary and that his blog was part of a master plan to take over the world. He had no idea it would take off the way it has. It was his way of dealing with the angst he felt as an Army veteran who opposed the Iraq war at a time when any disagreement with President Bush was thought to be almost treasonous. Moulitsas is no stranger to war. He had spent part of his youth in El Salvador, his mother’s native land, during that country’s brutal civil war. Back home in Chicago, he enlisted in the Army at age 17 and spent two and a half years with an artillery unit in Germany. After college and law school, he ended up designing Web pages in San Francisco. He supported the bombing in Afghanistan but was so viscerally opposed to the invasion of Iraq that he was driving his wife and boss and cubicle mate crazy, he recalls. “It was either start a blog and just vent or lose my entire social circle,” he said. Pretty soon he had 100 online visitors, more than he could accommodate in his house, he remembers thinking. When he hit 1,000, he thought to himself, “I’m done,” but he kept going--and now he’s Moses leading Democrats to the promised land.

Hell, Benedict Arnold was a national hero. He was just 'anti-war' not 'anti-American'. He just wanted the war to end so that American soldiers could go back to their farms and not die for the neo-con vision of an American empire. Hell, George Washington didn't even supply his troops with enough shoes to last the winter. And that chickenhawk Thomas Jefferson didn't even volunteer his own sons for the war!

Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nuthouse notes that on the Markos has a reality quotient of 0.4. But who's more out of touch with reality: Kos or the left-wing Washington press corps fawning over him?

Others: Talk Left thinks the article is inspiring. Me too. I'm inspired to go out and buy a Tom Jones album.

MyDD plays down Kos role. Aw shucks, don't give me credit for Hacket losing.

Iowa Voice--right on the money. Bill Quick, too.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:33 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 792 words, total size 5 kb.

Punk's not dead, oh no! Hat tip Professor Chaos. Any other Jawa authors should feel free to post their results here. I have a feeling we're a regular Breakfast Club of bloggers.

More below the fold. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:30 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 5 kb.

Just in case you were listening, yes, that was me on Hugh Hewitt this afternoon. And, yes, I think their is a strong case to be made that pointing nuclear weapons at Mecca would be a rational deterrent to the forces of Islam using WMD against the United States. I made that point last year here and here.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:55 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

So I learn from Charles Johnson, who must have some sort of masochistic tendencies because he spends so much time reading Kos, that the asshole himself decides to compare the religious-right with the Taliban. This in response to Iowahawk's little funny here and Ted Rall's screed in which he calls Ward Churchill a patriot (he must mean patriotism in the same way that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were patriots). Idiotic on a scale I haven't seen since 8th grade debate. Hitler was a vegetarian, you are a vegetarian, therefore you're a lot like Hitler! Nice. Anyway, most of the lunatics on the Left who believe this stuff have must be slippery slope retarded, equating, for instance the religious-right's school voucher dreams to the madrassas run by the Taliban.

In the spirit of Kos' logic, I present to you the reasons why Kos and his Leftist friends have more in common with the enemy than they think.

Religious Practice
Al Qaida/Taliban: We tolerate you as long as you practice in private
Kos Leftist Taliban: We tolerate you as long as you practice in private
The Right: Religion can be practiced anywhere, including public spaces

Religious Freedom
Al Qaida/Taliban: Forbidden in Koran
Kos Leftist Taliban: Forbidden in Constitution
The Right: Inherent part of Christianity

Church State Relations
Al Qaida/Taliban: The religion of the State is Islam
Kos Leftist Taliban: The religion of the State is Atheism
The Right: no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Equal Rights
Al Qaida/Taliban: Different punishments depending on sex
Kos Leftist Taliban: Different punishments depending on race
The Right: Equality before the law

Freedom of Speech
Al Qaida/Taliban: No
Kos Leftist Taliban: Ok, as long as you, you know, don't offend anybody.
The Right: Ok, as long as you don't incite to violence or criminal acts

Terrorist States
Al Qaida/Taliban: Good
Kos Leftist Taliban: Not any worse than U.S.
The Right: The enemy

Terrorists
Al Qaida/Taliban: Freedom fighters for Allah and against Imperialism
Kos Leftist Taliban: Freedom fighters against U.S. Imperialism
The Right: The enemy

Religious Law
Al Qaida/Taliban: Koran and Sharia only source of law
Kos Leftist Taliban: Religious law is ok in other countries because it's their culture
The Right: Secular governments for all countries

Human Rights
Al Qaida/Taliban: Human rights are a Western construct
Kos Leftist Taliban: Human rights are a Western construct and only applicable to Western countries
The Right: Human rights are universal

Blame America
Al Qaida/Taliban: Blame America first
Kos Leftist Taliban: Blame America first, ask questions later
The Right: Give America benefit of doubt

Versions of Events
Al Qaida/Taliban: When facts are in dispute, believe terrorist version
Kos Leftist Taliban: When facts are in dispute, believe terrorist version
The Right: When facts are in dispute, believe U.S. soldier's version

Torture
Al Qaida/Taliban: Good if we do it, bad if you do it
Kos Leftist Taliban: Bad if we do it--because we're the only ones that do it--oh, and every time you feel uncomfortable that's torture.
The Right: Bad, but most of what passes as torture is not actual torture.

One World Government
Al Qaida/Taliban: Support a one world government (caliphate)
Kos Leftist Taliban: Support one world government (UN)
The Right: Supports present nation-state system of sovereignty

Child Molestation
Al Qaida/Taliban: Ok, just marry her first (Aisha)
Kos Leftist Taliban: Hey, kids are sexual beings too
The Right: Immoral and disgusting

I guess two can play at this game, eh? Any other suggestions?

Update Pundit Mark ads

Religious Symbols:
Al Qaida/Taliban: non-Islamic religious symbols must be destroyed (i.e. those Buddist statues in Afghanistan)
Kos Leftist Taliban: non-Islamic religious symbols must be destroyed and defaced, preferably with public funds.
The Right: All religious symbols are OK, even if displayed on public property like a park or courthouse.

Related from Ace.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:50 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 644 words, total size 5 kb.

Seems San Francisco's "medical" marijuana clubs (hey, if everyone puts "War on Drugs" in smartass quotes then I can do it too) were actually just illegal drug clearing houses and money-laundering schemes for the Asian mob. The DEA busted three of them and found they were also distributing, um, "medical" ecstasy.

I'm flabbergasted. Speechless, really. You mean to tell me that this wasn't just a virtuous, earnest effort to reach out to troubled, anguished souls?

"An affidavit unsealed Thursday said that one of the suspects, Enrique Chan, 26, described in detail how the clubs were used as "a backbone" for illegal sales. The affidavit said Mr. Chan estimated that only half of the people who bought medical marijuana were really sick.

"You'll get busted, but you remember, you got to beat the prosecution in court," Mr. Chan told an undercover agent, according to the affidavit. "So if it comes down to a battle in court, what are you gonna do? You're going to bring patients in court, like really sick patients with cancer, have them sit on the stand for you. And no jury is gonna try, is gonna convict you."

In other words, organized crime is cynically going to hide behind cancer patients to protect its business. Not only was half of the marijuana used in the stores not for sick people, but the warehouses that grew the stores' ganja grew far more than the stores even needed:

"One warehouse in Oakland that federal agents raided earlier this month was capable of growing $3 million worth of marijuana annually, investigators said.

The marijuana ostensibly was for cannabis clubs, but the amount being grown was far more than needed to supply the dispensaries, authorities said.

I am just shocked and appalled at this blatant disruption of these kindly hippie/ Tong bagmen's shiny, happy lifestyles. In fact I'm so shocked and appalled that I'm going to go have me a big glass of "medical" bourbon and smoke a "therapeutic" Partagas.

UPDATE: Now, with new Blockquotes (tm) Technology! Here's another thing to keep in mind. There's no suggestion here of how many of these people actually suffer from, say, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and are unresponsive to other treatments like marinol, which I think are the real hard cases here. In fact, this AP account suggests some of the ailments may be a smidge less horrific:

"I'm scared," said Kathleen Prevost, who said she uses marijuana to control her post-traumatic stress disorder. "All I want to do is have access to my medicine."

Now if you'll excuse me, my ADHD is acting up, and I need some "Medical Cocaine". Oh, and that reminds me: I wrote a little about medical methamphetamine and the Commerce Clause right after the Raich decision.

Posted by: seedubya at 04:12 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Sometimes when I discuss my odd--for the blogosphere--opinions about drug legalization with people (I'm against it), I get told, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental economics."

For today, I'll save my several retorts to that in favor of an observation. Did you notice that no one ever says, on this issue or any other, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental sociology"? Why is that?

Anyway, this is just a prelude to a link to Captain Ed's spot on comments on that Hezbollah cocaine smuggling ring they busted in Ecuador and the US: "Snort Cocaine and Fund More Bombings".

Pretty much, yeah.

UPDATE: Rusty responds. One-two-three-four I declare a blog war! more...

Posted by: seedubya at 03:16 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1376 words, total size 9 kb.