Massachusetts Ballot Initiative

[hblask 1]

And then another other part of me thinks 'Who's to say what's an improvement and whether it should be the government's job to act in the way to 'improve' society?' However, even when I did support legalization I didn't believe that legalizing would not lead to an increase in supply and usage, because I think the logical conclusion is that it would.

OK, good post. These last two points are particularly interesting. The first one, my answer is, obviously, no, it's not the govts job to decide what tradeoffs are worth it to each individual. If the enjoyment I get from my theoretical (not actual) drug use is worth it to me, how is it some bureaucrats job to decide otherwise?As to the last point, I think I've been a bit inaccurate. I think the levels of drug *abuse* will not change, and that's really what we care about. People aren't seriously saying they now have a right to interfere with harmless, voluntary, responsible behavior, are they?

[copernicus 0]

I think this might be at least a little facetious, but it's an interesting question. I focused on the jazz part of your statement because that's what I listen to, but also because jazz is such a unique kind of music, and has more to do with history and is more tied to history than any other music. I don't know enough about the history of heroin use in this country to really talk about it, since I dunno when it entered jazz. I'm guessing it was the 40s with Charlie Parker and those guys. It's interesting to look at a guy like Charlie Parker and ask would he have been as great without heroin? He almost certainly would have lived longer (34), but would he have been brilliant, or merely great without it? On the other hand, what if attributing his talent partially to heroin is entirely backwards? What if heroin prevented him from playing to his full potential? Seems unlikely in his specific situation, but only because his playing was so often, for lack of a better term, completely perfect and entirely new. How could it have been better if he was clean?A counter-example might be Coltrane, who got clean very early (before he became a leader), and who took his music to incredible new places while completely drug and alcohol free. Any thoughts on the specific link between heroin and creativity? I mean heroin is known for knocking you the fuck out, but Charlie Parker was famous for playing beautifully even when he was high as hell. I remember a story about him at a recording date in the studio and being really high - they started playing and he played the intro and all and then somebody else took a solo and he sat down and basically nodded out. The author of the story was either a musician at the date or a producer, and he recalled thinking along the lines of 'Well in 4 bars we're gonna have to start over because Charlie is fucking out,' then perfectly on cue for his solo Parker stood up, played a brilliant solo, and sat back down and nodded out. I dunno if you listen to much jazz, but if you haven't ever seen tape of Charlie Parker playing, it's really great. I'm not saying he's high or anything here - but his style of staying almost perfectly still makes the notes coming out of his sax seem all the more....what's a good word? - transcendent. This is the best I could find on youtube. It seems some of the other stuff "lip synching" over recordings. Anyways this is pretty excellent, and if anybody takes the time to watch this but is kinda bored or whatever - 0:40-0:46 is really all you need to see. Wow I typed a lot.

With Parker its difficult to say because I dont think he was ever clean for an extended period. You have a few good counter-examples in Miles, Coltrane and especially Sonny Rollins. I think the quality of their recordings/performances during their clean periods was better, and in Rollins case not even close. Miles wouldnt work with Coltrane for a while, not just because he was trying to stay clean (if the music was better he would have dealth with it).Look at the rock side. Clapton was atrocious at the height of his addiction. Axl Rose and Scott Weiland could barely perform. Jim Carroll (mentioned only for contrast with the Velvets) didnt even start until he was clean, and Lou Reed and friends were so dull you couldnt tell whether they were high or not."Savoy sides presents a new saxophone sensationIt's Parker's band with a smooth style of syncopationKansas City born and growingYou won't believe what the boys are blowingYou got to come on manAnd take a piece of Mister Parker's bandYou'll be riding by, bareback on your armadilloYou'll be grooving high or relaxing at CamarilloSuddenly the music hits youIt's a bird in flight that just can't quit youYou got to come on manAnd take a piece of Mister Parker's bandWe will spend a dizzy weekend smacked into a tranceMe and you will listen toA little bit of what made the preacher danceBring your horn along and you can add to the pure confectionAnd if you can't fly you'll have to move in with the rhythm sectionEither way you're bound to functionFifty-Second Street's the junctionYou got to come on manAnd take a piece of Mister Parker'sClap your hands and take a piece of Mister Parker'sCome on man and take a piece of Mister Parker's band "

[RealMagnetic 0]

At the height of addiction NOBODY is going to function well, musically or otherwise. What about before the height of their addictions? Think about the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Anthony Kedis was doing drugs like crazy, and I personally love their music. But the newer music with him off the drugs isn't the same quality.

[x Swift x 0]

All the best music was made on drugs lets be honest

[timwakefield 68]

With Parker its difficult to say because I dont think he was ever clean for an extended period. You have a few good counter-examples in Miles, Coltrane and especially Sonny Rollins. I think the quality of their recordings/performances during their clean periods was better, and in Rollins case not even close.

That's interesting, I've actually gotten really really into Sonny Rollins lately, but haven't taken the time to read much about him. When did he get clean? I'm guessing probably around the early to mid 50s? His live albums throughout the 60s are all so goddam great.

[BenSavage 0]

We let the gets do the POT? What next we marry dogs? You on drugs!!!

[Sheiky 0]

OK, good post. These last two points are particularly interesting. The first one, my answer is, obviously, no, it's not the govts job to decide what tradeoffs are worth it to each individual. If the enjoyment I get from my theoretical (not actual) drug use is worth it to me, how is it some bureaucrats job to decide otherwise?As to the last point, I think I've been a bit inaccurate. I think the levels of drug *abuse* will not change, and that's really what we care about. People aren't seriously saying they now have a right to interfere with harmless, voluntary, responsible behavior, are they?

Well, consider this -Imagine I ask 1000 heroin addicts whether they regret becoming addicted to heroin, or perhaps more relevant, is the trade of worth it to them? (I haven't found the right wording there, but bear with me)If everyone one of them says that it wasn't and that they wish heroin wasn't available to them as a teenager, would your position on the government's job be the same?The complication with something like addictive drugs is that there is a big disparity between what people think of them before they use and what they think of them after they get addicted, and possibly it is the responsibility of government to act in the best will of the people in matters like that. My politics teacher pointed out to me in school that if we held a referendum on everything our policies and views towards race/immigration/issues like that would be like they were 40 years ago, he argued that the government are generally 'ahead of the curve' so to speak. I'm not sure whether I think this is actually true (Because there's an easy fallacy that could make us believe this) but I think in theory it makes sense and is an argument for government intervention.I'm not sure if you're arguing for all drugs to be legalized or just cannabis as they're are pretty seperate entities imo, so I don't want to sound like i'm arguing against something you're not even for, but the crime effect associated with hard drugs is definitely something to take into consideration.Actually, given the mass amounts of criminal activity surrounding illegal substances(thinking back to prohibition and the crack boom in the 80s), I think it's very possible that the trade off would be a positive one.Argh this situation is too confusing and will take time for me to think about, I think I could actually come around though, up untill the above sentance I never considered that lealizing drugs could have a net positive crime affect.Though yet another consideration is that changing to legalization might not = Drugs being legal always because of certain factors.

[RealMagnetic 0]

Sheiky,I think eduction is the key to drug prevention. Like you said, the addicts would likely say "I wish these weren't available when I was young" but what they mean is "I wish I knew these suck, and never tried them" And the thing is, some people are just stupid. They just can't resist. My cousin went to jail for 2 years from things he did when he was addicted to heroin. And he should have known better. He DID technically know better. Why should all of this be burdening our prison system? We have to PAY for them to be in prison! I dunno. I guess I just think we should be putting responsibility into the hands of the people. Putting it in the hands of the government is dumbing us down, and making us less self-reliant.Don't you think there would be community groups informing people about drug abuse if the government wasn't??? Of course there would be.

[hblask 1]

If everyone one of them says that it wasn't and that they wish heroin wasn't available to them as a teenager, would your position on the government's job be the same?

Yes, because this would be a very sad, gray world if we were not allowed to make mistakes (especially where "mistake" is defined by a politician more worried about re-election than what's good for people.

[hblask 1]

My politics teacher pointed out to me in school that if we held a referendum on everything our policies and views towards race/immigration/issues like that would be like they were 40 years ago, he argued that the government are generally 'ahead of the curve' so to speak. I'm not sure whether I think this is actually true (Because there's an easy fallacy that could make us believe this) but I think in theory it makes sense and is an argument for government intervention.

This is obviously false in a democracy, as, theoretically, politicians are performing the will of the people, so in the absence of strong evidence otherwise, the assumption should be that the government is following, not leading. Certainly there can be exceptions, but considering that the northern half of the US was very modern on race relations even during the civil war, this case seems to be "following".

[Sheiky 0]

Sheiky,I think eduction is the key to drug prevention. Like you said, the addicts would likely say "I wish these weren't available when I was young" but what they mean is "I wish I knew these suck, and never tried them" And the thing is, some people are just stupid. They just can't resist. My cousin went to jail for 2 years from things he did when he was addicted to heroin. And he should have known better. He DID technically know better. Why should all of this be burdening our prison system? We have to PAY for them to be in prison! I dunno. I guess I just think we should be putting responsibility into the hands of the people. Putting it in the hands of the government is dumbing us down, and making us less self-reliant.Don't you think there would be community groups informing people about drug abuse if the government wasn't??? Of course there would be.

Speaking as a person in full time education, I actually don't think this is particulary true anymore. I mean, it SHOULD make sense that people knowing and understanding more about drugs would make them a looot less likely to use them, but I think there are faaar too many counter arguments against this now.Think of how many very intelligent people gamble their life away on a blackjack table, or dare I say it the few incredibly knowledgeable scientists who swear by intelligent design (There is one in my school). Think of how many millions of people still chose to smoke despite being warned with every packet that they're killing themselves. I go to a the best school in my city yet a hell of a lot of people smoke and take drugs.My idea is that information about drugs isn't really the problem any more. It may have been in the 1980s when this stuff was all new and unexplored. It's pretty damn hard to live till you're 15 and NOT know about the effects of cocaine addiction nowadays, yet is cocaine addiction falling? If it is, I don't think it's by much.I think the major problem is the culture of drugs and the way their viewed in society, in schools and in teenage communities. People need to appear tough in front of their friends, they want to be the one that's being a hardass popping the dopest pills every Saturday night because it gives them an identity and a reputation. Teenagers start smoking because their mate did and they don't want to appear less cool than him, it may sound crazy but that's what causes drug use, it's the multiplier effect of peer pressure. Nights out with your friends just talking to each other without being under the influence of something are looked upon as uncool and out dated. If you wanna go out now you gotta get smashed or stoned or high or jumped up on Es otherwise it's just lame. This is a problem that is deeply embedded and quite frankly nigh on impossible to change I feel, no matter how many drug education films you make 6 year olds watch, at least in my own country.

[hblask 1]

Sheiky,I think eduction is the key to drug prevention. Like you said, the addicts would likely say "I wish these weren't available when I was young" but what they mean is "I wish I knew these suck, and never tried them"

And the thing is, if there were safe, legal alternatives, people would use them instead. If there was a drug that gave you your 1 hour buzz, then left your system with no addiction and no side effects, how many people would continue to use crack or meth?

[RealMagnetic 0]

Good points Sheiky,I just down't want the governemnt acting like my parents or something. People need to self-actualize. This whole idea of having the government handle everything for us is making us a retarded country. (IMHO)For example, WHY are those kids doing dumb shit like that? (drugs smoking etc???) What about their parents? Why are parents so stupid as to see the signs and ignore them?

[Sheiky 0]

This is obviously false in a democracy, as, theoretically, politicians are performing the will of the people, so in the absence of strong evidence otherwise, the assumption should be that the government is following, not leading. Certainly there can be exceptions, but considering that the northern half of the US was very modern on race relations even during the civil war, this case seems to be "following".

Well a democracy that runs today is largely a representative one. We elect politicians and then let them get on with making what they believe to be the best decisions. If every politician we elect was solely an empty head that represented his constituencies views entirely, then I don't think we would be quite where we are today at all. Not to mention that it is virtually impossible for a MP (or House rep in your case) to get an accurate picture of exactly what the public are thinking on most issues.

[Sheiky 0]

And the thing is, if there were safe, legal alternatives, people would use them instead. If there was a drug that gave you your 1 hour buzz, then left your system with no addiction and no side effects, how many people would continue to use crack or meth?

But what are the safe alternative to crack cocaine? I can imagine that the addictiveness of the drug would be beneficial to it's manufacturer, but would not this also be the case if they were produced by any legal manufacturer?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

And the thing is, if there were safe, legal alternatives, people would use them instead. If there was a drug that gave you your 1 hour buzz, then left your system with no addiction and no side effects, how many people would continue to use crack or meth?

Many. It's called addiction. It doesn't obey logic. But certainty many less would never start using crack and meth. However, any such drug whose effect was comporable to that of meth would have to also be extremely addictive, since drugs work by increasing the presence of certain chemicals in the neurons in your brain, and a regular dose of those chemicals will quickly make the brain dependent on those chemicals.

[hblask 1]

But what are the safe alternative to crack cocaine? I can imagine that the addictiveness of the drug would be beneficial to it's manufacturer, but would not this also be the case if they were produced by any legal manufacturer?

There are no safe alternatives because no company is allowed to research or market such a drug. Scientists know enough about metabolism and pleasure centers that creating one would be simple, although expensive, and no company would invest the money unless there was a solid market at the end of it all.

[timwakefield 68]

There are no safe alternatives because no company is allowed to research or market such a drug.

Isn't that what methadone is? Not that it's a great solution (because it's not a great substance), but it is the placeholder for such a solution, isn't it?

[BigLebowski 0]

Marijuana is so 20th century. Kids these days have moved on to bigger and better things. These things can conveniently be found in their parents medicine cabinet and sometimes even in their own. The middle school where I work busts kids in a 10/1 ratio for illegal prescription drugs to pot. Pot can't even be considered a top 10 gateway drug anymore and will never eclipse alcohol or tobacco. However, I will openly admit pot can lead to delusions of being able to lead an unsustainable increase in housing prices. Coincidence in California? I don't think so.

[vbnautilus 48]

There are no safe alternatives because no company is allowed to research or market such a drug. Scientists know enough about metabolism and pleasure centers that creating one would be simple, although expensive, and no company would invest the money unless there was a solid market at the end of it all.

Theoretically *might be* possible, not currently feasible by any means. We don't know enough about how addiction works in the brain to do this, and it may turn out to be impossible to both stimulate pleasure and avoid addiction.

[copernicus 0]

That's interesting, I've actually gotten really really into Sonny Rollins lately, but haven't taken the time to read much about him. When did he get clean? I'm guessing probably around the early to mid 50s? His live albums throughout the 60s are all so goddam great.

1955

[copernicus 0]

This is obviously false in a democracy, as, theoretically, politicians are performing the will of the people, so in the absence of strong evidence otherwise, the assumption should be that the government is following, not leading. Certainly there can be exceptions, but considering that the northern half of the US was very modern on race relations even during the civil war, this case seems to be "following".

You are correct in a democracy, but again, we are not a democracy. As a representative republic we elect leaders who are expected to do more than "follow", and are expected to be better than the collective population.

[copernicus 0]

Theoretically *might be* possible, not currently feasible by any means. We don't know enough about how addiction works in the brain to do this, and it may turn out to be impossible to both stimulate pleasure and avoid addiction.

I thought the days of "may...be impossible" were long gone?

[vbnautilus 48]

I thought the days of "may...be impossible" were long gone?

Yeah, I hear you. I'm just trying to stress that it's a much more difficult problem to solve than it may seem on the surface and isn't a simple matter of chemical engineering. Not gonna happen in the next 10 years.

[copernicus 0]

Yeah, I hear you. I'm just trying to stress that it's a much more difficult problem to solve than it may seem on the surface and isn't a simple matter of chemical engineering. Not gonna happen in the next 10 years.

I actually meant it the other way...that there is ample evidence that between the pscychological and chemical effects it isnt likely to ever happen. (unless your going by a strict definition of "addiction" that excludes psychological dependence).