• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Too Much Policing in Black Neighborhoods

Nicotine would not lead to higher blood pressure?

I heard a long time ago that nicotine works on 2 neurotransmitters at the same time: one makes you relaxed and one amped up. But the relaxing one wears off in a few minutes requiring another hit or you feel stressed. Can't find the chart about it now.

This is worthy of a split to the science subforum.
There is nothing to discuss here, go to wikipedia page on in and confirm that they really don't have much on nicotine in terms of negative health effects. So notion that hard drugs in their pure form are safer than smoking is simply ridiculous, you need to compare to pure nicotine then.
Having said that, I would ban smoking too, leaving current nicotine addicts with with Nicotine patches for a time being.
 
Other than being addictive nicotine in its pure form has hardly any negative health effects. Same can't be said about other drugs such as cocain, heroin, THC,... The fact that one can "live" on heroin a long life if it is administered in proper ways does not mean it is actual living or not dangerous.
Who would you rather have piloting the plane you are flying? A pilot who use legal heroin/cocaine or a pilot with a Nicolette patch?
If anything, nicotine actually makes pilots more concentrated at his job, that's an established fact.

Nobody takes nicotine in it's pure form.
That's patently false.
And every year more people are dying because they smoked cigarettes than any other drug.
Yeah, and every year more people die from smoking than from jumping from the bridge.
 
At any rate, the number of people harmed makes little to no difference so long as they are: 1.) Harming only themselves, 2.) Paying the costs for any future medical care they may need to the proportion that the average user of the drug would end up needing it, and 3.) Made aware of the nature of risks for which they are already paying.

There are notable exceptions to drug use legality that exist in the world, notably in the classes of drugs which "weaponize" people, of which PCP would be a potential example.

The point ultimately was, if we can live with legal cigarettes we can live with legal crack.

The harm from crack is not worth the harm that comes from trying to stop people from taking it.

Are you ok with a corporation industrailizing the process for creating crack, selling it very cheap in a consumer friendly product, and supporting sales with advertising, with the goal to maximize profits?

Full blown legalization?
 
Are you ok with a corporation industrailizing the process for creating crack, selling it very cheap in a consumer friendly product, and supporting sales with advertising, with the goal to maximize profits?
Full blown legalization?
Well I hope at least the vending machines work.
 
The point ultimately was, if we can live with legal cigarettes we can live with legal crack.

The harm from crack is not worth the harm that comes from trying to stop people from taking it.

Are you ok with a corporation industrailizing the process for creating crack, selling it very cheap in a consumer friendly product, and supporting sales with advertising, with the goal to maximize profits?

Full blown legalization?

I would be far happier with a situation where no advertisement outside of dispensaries is accepted. Then, I also happpen to think that it ought be sold in plain packaging and that all additives, cutting agents, and ingredients should be listed and that no patents be issuable on anything involving recreational drugs; Allow competition to exist on the merits of the quality of product alone. Force competition to happen on the axis of quality alone.
 
The point ultimately was, if we can live with legal cigarettes we can live with legal crack.

The harm from crack is not worth the harm that comes from trying to stop people from taking it.

Are you ok with a corporation industrailizing the process for creating crack, selling it very cheap in a consumer friendly product, and supporting sales with advertising, with the goal to maximize profits?

Full blown legalization?

The same as alcohol.

To people over 21.

Sure.

Because an effort to prevent them from taking it causes more harm than allowing it.
 
What, exactly, did BLM do to cause this problem?

Create mistrust of police? Nope, that's been around for...I don't even know how long.

Cause cops to shoot and kill black people, or shrug their shoulders at a murder? Also no, they're a response to that.

Did they fund drug raids far above homicide detectives, who often point out that they can't pay for witness protection? Nope, they're mostly too young for that one (Did you even know about this problem?).

I don't see anyone saying BLM caused it. What people are saying is that BLM is making things worse.

1) Effort directed at things which don't solve the problem is effort that's not directed at actually solving the problem.

The police are the violent edge of the exact problem - which is that, clearly, quite a few people think that black people in particular are unimportant.

2) Continually blaming whitey for the problems in the inner city hides the fact that the problems are almost entirely internal. So long as there is a believable external excuse people won't look inwards for the answers. BLM is the equivalent of providing drugs to an addict.

Again, the police are a large part of the problem. If they fail to investigate major crimes because they're riding around arresting and beating people at random, then they are not serving their most important functions. And it's absolutely clear that many white people, mostly on the right wing, are openly in favor of this. So yes, I'll add them to the list.

3) BLM is making the police more cautious about doing their jobs

I'd love that if it were true. Instead, they treat every protest like a terrorist attack, and come out in mine-resistant vehicles and absurd body armor screaming about how they're at war - and then act shocked when people treat them like the self-described enemies.
 
Poverty and drugs are not the cause of violent crime.



http://theweek.com/articles/452321/appalachia-big-white-ghetto

Appalachia also has a particularly important difference from places like north Minneapolis: population density.

Don't think that's it. Crime follows section 8 housing regardless of population density.

About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country. Eventually, they thought, they’d find other researchers who connected the dots the way they had, and then maybe they could get city leaders, and even national leaders, to listen.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/
 
Except that the crime is a result of two things: marginalization of the poor (who happen to be black, and thus forcing racist perceptions to blossom in the face of a well established human inability to separate correlation from causation), and the drug war which opens a criminal black market which can only be regulated through violence.

Neither of those things are 'internal'. The violence is an antecedent of the desperation of the poor as caused by bad schools and absentee land owners (things the communities have no control over), and the drug war.

But the lack of value placed on education in such communities is internal--and at the heart of the problem.

(We see the same thing with white trash--but nobody alleges it's due to racism.)
 
That's basically a circular definition, you're not showing that you understand the word.

Exponential refers to something involving exponents, generally a curve. To define a curve you need a number of data points greater than the highest exponent in the equation describing it.

You have only two data points, though--the highest exponent can only be one. An equation with the highest exponent equal to one is describing a straight line.


Now, some uneducated people might be misusing the term but it is misuse.

Nonsense!!!

An exponent is a notation on a variable or number.

So if something is 1000 times greater than something else it is 10 with 3 as an exponent greater.

In shorthand and without mentioning the specific exponent: Exponentially Greater.

What about it do you have trouble understanding?

It is a common phrase in English.

Something that is 1000x another value is three orders of magnitude greater.

How much college-level math and science education do you have??
 
Sorry, but he's right.

Once you remove the deaths due to impurity (which would not exist if drugs were legal and produced under proper conditions) tobacco is clearly the most dangerous drug out there, killing 1/3 of it's users in time. Next in line isn't so clear cut (trying to remove the crap from the data is hard) but it looks like alcohol is in the #2 spot.
But tobacco deaths are due to impurity too. I doubt Nicolette patches all that deadly.

Impurity as in cut with unsuitable agents or dangerous residues left from manufacturing. I'm not talking about things inherent in the nature of the product, such as the combustion products of tobacco.
 
The Daily Fail, crap as usual.

The problem here is that they are counting all the lifestyle dangers that go along with illegal drugs as part of the harm done by the drugs--but that harm wouldn't be done if the drugs were legal.

Daily Fail just repeated what serious researchers said.

Did you notice the source was an addiction treatment place? While the data might be accurate that doesn't mean it's not cherry-picked. I pointed out the problem--it counts the harm due to the illegality as well as the harm due to the drug.
 
Except that the crime is a result of two things: marginalization of the poor (who happen to be black, and thus forcing racist perceptions to blossom in the face of a well established human inability to separate correlation from causation), and the drug war which opens a criminal black market which can only be regulated through violence.

Neither of those things are 'internal'. The violence is an antecedent of the desperation of the poor as caused by bad schools and absentee land owners (things the communities have no control over), and the drug war.

But the lack of value placed on education in such communities is internal--and at the heart of the problem.

(We see the same thing with white trash--but nobody alleges it's due to racism.)

Please substantiate the idea that the 'low value' is due to something other than a combination of the actual uselessness of an education from a drastically underfunded district, combined with the fact that the people funding that district prioritize things like food and shelter over the increased taxes that bettering that education in the current system would cost.

To whom little is given, little may be achieved, and when one may achieve only little in a given environment, that environment will not be favored.

The low value in lieu of immediate needs and the perception of that low value are, in my estimation, clearly external. The problem could be solved roundly by changing education to a state pool of property taxes and doing fund distribution preferring underperforming districts, instead of expecting people who have next to nothing to give up what little they have left to barely make a dent in their community's educational deficits, we should be allocating money from those districts which can afford it.
 
The point ultimately was, if we can live with legal cigarettes we can live with legal crack.

The harm from crack is not worth the harm that comes from trying to stop people from taking it.

Are you ok with a corporation industrailizing the process for creating crack, selling it very cheap in a consumer friendly product, and supporting sales with advertising, with the goal to maximize profits?

Full blown legalization?

One part of this I find unacceptable: the advertising. While I think making it legal would be vastly superior to the current situation I would like to see marketing limits:

1) You can have a simple name & price listing anywhere.

2) You can freely advertise in a situation where you know that customers are after that product. Inside Crack 'R' Us you can put whatever ads for crack you want. You can't do that in Drugs 'R' Us, though--but Drugs 'R' Us can divide it's store up by drug and have isolated areas for each drug where they can advertise. (Not merely a crack aisle--the ads must not be visible from outside the area and the area can't be one that people will pass through for any reason other than getting to an emergency exit.)

Note that I would apply these very same rules to tobacco and alcohol--and tobacco would be divided up into smoke/chew and alcohol would be divided up in to spirits/wine/beer.
 
Nonsense!!!

An exponent is a notation on a variable or number.

So if something is 1000 times greater than something else it is 10 with 3 as an exponent greater.

In shorthand and without mentioning the specific exponent: Exponentially Greater.

What about it do you have trouble understanding?

It is a common phrase in English.

Something that is 1000x another value is three orders of magnitude greater.

How much college-level math and science education do you have??

That is merely another way to express the same thing.

How much education in language do you have?

Do you think there is only one way to express all things?
 
Are you ok with a corporation industrailizing the process for creating crack, selling it very cheap in a consumer friendly product, and supporting sales with advertising, with the goal to maximize profits?

Full blown legalization?

I would be far happier with a situation where no advertisement outside of dispensaries is accepted. Then, I also happpen to think that it ought be sold in plain packaging and that all additives, cutting agents, and ingredients should be listed and that no patents be issuable on anything involving recreational drugs; Allow competition to exist on the merits of the quality of product alone. Force competition to happen on the axis of quality alone.

What's the problem with fancy packaging so long as it's only in a dispensary?
 
Back
Top Bottom