 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
They have a lower toxicity level and a higher usage level. And they aren't addictive, unless you consider food an addictive drug |
So you are saying that we should ban anything that is addictive, heavily used, and has a high toxicity level, but we should only ban things that meet EACH of those requirements, right? So, then, why not ban alcohol?
quote:
Yes, because you can prevent that murder. If you couldn't prevent it anyway, why try? |
Excellent. So, again, then why not support laws against alcohol?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, saying the WoD can be successful is sort of like saying that Prohibition could have been successful. That's utterly false - the WoD can't be successful because too many people want to do drugs. The demand is too high, and no amount of government programs are going to change that. |
Mortality from alcoholic liver disease did in fact decline during Prohibition, so in fact Prohibition was most likely successful.
You're probably going to rebut my statement with some chart or alleged governmental statistic you're going to get from some pro-NORML website showing that homicide rates increased during the 1920s and declined during the 1930s. I'll just pre-empt you by asking that you find a referrence that breaks these crimes down by cause, and show me that the increase in the homicide rate during the roaring twenties had anything to do with Prohibition. The problem is that the roaring twenties were a era typified by a number of dramatic social changes, any one of which might have been part of the cause of the rate of murder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
So you are saying that we should ban anything that is addictive, heavily used, and has a high toxicity level, but we should only ban things that meet EACH of those requirements, right? So, then, why not ban alcohol?
Excellent. So, again, then why not support laws against alcohol? |
Excellent. Great minds DO think alike.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
No, I'm not gonna make that argument at all. I'm simply going to say that Prohibition did not stop people from drinking, if they really wanted to drink. However, the relative unenforceability of a law should not translate to the law being repealed, on that basis alone, if you are basing the law on right and wrong.
That is, if drinking is in fact wrong, then repealing the law because you can't stop everyone from doing it (or refusing to pass a law for the same reason), is no different from repealing laws against murder because all murders are not stopped.
However, if drinking is not wrong, then it becomes the job of those in favor of Prohibition to state why drinking should be banned.
So pick one. Either we should have laws against drinking, or drinking isn't wrong. If the former, then you're gonna have to tell me either why drinking is wrong, or why it is OK to ban something that isn't wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Excellent. Great minds DO think alike. |
So, it is your belief that drinking is wrong. Correct?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Exploiting foreigners? A voluntary, non-coercive act is NOT exploitive. Giving foreigners what they want? Sure. And why not? It's not hurting anyone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
So, it is your belief that drinking is wrong. Correct? |
Yup.
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
On what do you base that belief? You are saying that if I have a beer in my house, that I committed an immoral act. From where do you derive this belief?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
THis guy sounds like he will crack down on drugs so its a good choice.
|
Sure - so if your kid or your brother is involved in drugs, it's obviously your fault, so let's seize your property too. If we don't find all your bank accounts, maybe you can have enough to hire a lawyer to get back some of your property.
Or, let's just arrest you and then pressure you into "cooperating" in an investigation that you know nothing about.
Or, **** attorney-client privilege, court rules and procedures, and all that bleeding heart liberal do-gooder nonsense in the Constitution. We're the feds, we're always in the right against you scum, so we'll tell you if you have any rights to violate.
I don't like zealots who bend or break the rules, period.
quote:
As for those of you who approve of drug use you only hate the person because he wants to take your pot away. Drugs are harmfull to society and cause a lot of problems. THey are harmfull to your health, and cause harmfull addictions.
|
Sugar and fatty foods cause even more health problems - coronary artery disease, diabetes, general poor health, obesity, and from their pattern of consumption, they seem addictive too. Let's raid Little Debbie and throw those scum in jail. And oh, if you're not eating your vegetables, the Diet Enforcement Agency will be kicking your doors in too. 
Why not? It's the same rationale, and sugar, excess fat intake, alcohol and tobacco consumption jointly account for more social harm by far than does controlled substance use.
quote:
Why do you want to say to people its all right to use this crap?? |
I don't presume to make moral judgments for other people's private activities. When there's a public impact (driving, operating machinery, an impact on the state's established protective interest over minors, or an impact on interstate commerce, then both legal and illegal drug use are within the legitimate regulatory reach of government. I also don't presume to use the power of the state to force my moral views on other people's private behavior.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Maybe I should just go back to my old ways? When I was far authoritarian? Singapore is a model country and the entire world should be modeled after Singapore. Look at its low crime rate, and excellent infrastructure.
As a hardline Machiavellian, I see no problem with taking a firm stance on anything. |
HARDLINE MACHIAVELLIAN? You're actually parading yourself as something that trumped up?
Fez, you haven't even read The Prince, have you? Seriously, the world is going to chew your fairy ass right the f*ck up as soon as Mummy & Papa kick you out of of villa de fantasy. You would have been thrown in jail or repeatedly beat down in a country like Singapore by now, and that's not a joke. Keep telling yourself you're a hard ass "machiavellian", when all you are is a loose assed ideology scraper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
skywalker - quote:
No, but an induced abnormally LARGE release of neurotransmitters will ALWAYS create an addiction. It makes the dendrites less sensitive to the specific neurotransmitter being released, effectively "recalibrating" the brain. |
Then there should be roughly 80 million pot addicts in the country, but there aren't. Why? Well, maybe because pot doesn't do what you claim. 
quote:
I have the feeling that the efforts towards Prohibition were far greater than those towards getting rid of marijuana. |
Do you have facts or just feelings?
quote:
No, you didn't read it carefully. I said that the drug CHANGED PEOPLE who wouldn't have done things like heroin into people who would. |
That's absurd, I never used heroin but I did use pot. So how do you explain that? Btw, I did read what you said. Now explain how a drug like pot "changes" a person who would never want to use heroin into a person who wants to use heroin. I'd love to see how this magical quality in pot tells the brain to desire drugs the brain has never experienced.
quote:
I didn't see how it followed from what you had just said. I don't even remember what it was about anymore. |
This is your brain, this is your brain on sobriety. Skywalker, we were talking about the validity of a theory claiming that some drugs are "gateway" drugs, meaning the use of them "leads" to other drugs. Would you agree that a person who avoids all recreational drugs regardless of their legal status is less likely to use a recreational drug than a person who already uses at least one recreational drug? Why did the first person avoid all drugs while the second didn't? What was the "gateway" to the second person's decision to try a drug to begin with? There is no such thing as a "gateway" drug, it's pseudoscience and has been refuted by, ironically, the government's own studies.
quote:
Slippery slope? On the drug war? Come on... |
Just explaining how you've lost all moral authority to complain when the freedoms you cherish are under attack since you were a willing participant in prior attacks on the freedoms other people cherish. But yes, we're already on that slippery slope. Once you hand over our freedom to politicians, they will get around to the freedoms you want preserved.
quote:
Marijuana - I don't know. I DO know that it is toxic. |
 YOU DON'T KNOW! I don't know either. You know why? Because the medical community and government has one helluva time documenting ANY deaths from marijuana. All they can do is offer up nonsense like you've been posting about "toxicity"...
quote:
Aspirin - few, as almost nobody abuses aspirin. |
Exactly! People don't "abuse" aspirin and yet several thousand die every year from it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Salt is toxic... |
Salt is utterly necessary for life. So are carbohydrates and fats. You know this. Saying (in so many words) that if marijuana is bad for you, and/or that these substances should be beanned if marijauan is banned is utterly silly and you know it. Surely you can come up with a better argument,
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Actually you are wrong. I support executions for all drug offenders who possess more than 200 grams of marijuana after public humiliation.
I support a militarization of the police force, a tough military doctrine for a secret police organization that will shoot drug dealers on site, and other things. |
Let me get this straight, you're only going to execute people who deal in marijuana if they've been publicly humiliated? Do you mean ever in their lives, or some time recent to the offense? You're going to stand some guy up against a wall and shoot him because you found him dealing in dope and in the third grade he didn't make it to the bathroom on time, but the guy who did make it to the bathroom you're going to do what? Give him a full pardon?
Do you live in "Franz Kafka World"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
skywalker - quote:
I WASN'T STATING IT AS A FACT, GODBLEEPIT!!! |
Of course, it was another one of your "feelings". But isn't that little fact at the heart of your argument? If you want us to believe that legalising drugs will worsen "society", then it's up to you to show us actual evidence, not how you "feel".
quote:
You had made a stupid quibble as to my wording, I corrected it. |
And I refuted your correction, which you ignored.
quote:
Sports are a behavior, not a substance. The analogy doesn't work and doesn't apply. |
Using a substance is a behavior. Now you're equating a basketball with a drug and ignoring that using both are behaviors.
quote:
No, after being convinced that they aren't harmed at all by a gateway drug, the next logical step is for them to believe that a slightly more dangerous drug won't harm them all that much... and so on. |
Assuming that's true, then it isn't pot that "changes" a person into a heroin user, it's their perception of relative harm. Btw, you've just stumbled upon a reason why some young people die from more dangerous drugs. They're told that pot is harmful and that message is enforced by the law, so when they discover pot isn't nearly as harmful as they were told, they question the validity of claims made about other drugs.
quote:
You've been inventing stuff too. |
Blaming me for your inventions won't work.
quote:
You somehow complain about my stance on alcohol and tobacco, despite the fact that I have CLEARLY STATED that I am against them. |
But you don't want alcohol made illegal, so where did I invent something? I never said you supported alcohol use.
quote:
There is no such thing as a "physical" addiction. It is psychological or chemical (chemical can be called physiological). Physical would imply measurable forces acting on your body to force you to consume more of the drug |
And you complain about me quibbling? You've posted alot of stuff about "measurable forces" - drugs and their effects inducing more drug use - and now you say these aren't measurable forces? Um...kay...
quote:
However, there IS a physiological effect when you stop using marijuana. Because the dendrites have set themselves to interpreting a certain level of neurotransmitters as the norm, they will react in alarm if neurotransmitter levels drop back down to the true norm. |
So now we're back to measurable forces inducing drug use.
quote:
So it's absolutely fine for them to smoke, drink, and use marijuana while pregnant, because Hey, I'm doing stuff that could hurt it anyway? |
And now we're back to you inventing stuff. How do you come up with this crap in response to my argument that ingesting certain substances by pregnant women can effect their babies?
And you wanted us to ignore Fez because he's not a good advocate for your position?
quote:
Yes, the damage can often be permanent. The effects can wear off, but often do not. |
Gee, is that another of those "feelings" requiring no proof?
quote:
Even if they do wear off, they never go away completely. |
By all means, show us how long it takes.
quote:
It's like a stroke - you could be paralyzed forever, regain some motor functions, or regain all of them, but still have a little difficulty (though in the case of marijuana you aren't paralyzed). |
Is this how you feel or do you have actual proof?
quote:
And the goal isn't to protect the people who are already lost to it; the goal is to protect people who aren't from the ones who are. |
Explain how you're achieving your goal and back it up with proof.
quote:
No, the Supreme Court has, IIRC, overturned laws on the grounds that they are unenforcable. |
Really? Which ones. Btw, the Constitution was amended to allow for alcohol prohibition but was never amended to allow for the prohibition of other drugs (not that you'd care about the Constitution).
quote:
The reason you shouldn't have unenforcable laws is because they cannot achieve anything but wasting resources. |
Hey Skywalker, I've got news for you. There are roughly 20-25 million people who use illegal drugs and roughly 1.5 million jail cells. If you can only imprison less than 10% of the offenders at best, the law is unenforceable. And thanks to all the resources wasted on chasing drug users, real criminals escape detection easier. You know, like people who want to hijack planes and fly them into buildings...
quote:
I think the WoD has been mishandled, and can be successful if done right. |
More news, you aren't in charge.
quote:
How about we seriously encrease enforcement and penalties towards MINORS. That's where it all starts. |
Because most parents don't want their kids thrown in cages with real criminals.
quote:
Because the POINT of passing a law is to stop the activity you are making illegal. If you can't stop the activity anyway, why bother? You will expend effort to no gain. Save the effort for things that will work. |
So, have drug laws significantly reduced drug use? Nope. But I provided a list of pathologies your side wants to ignore, so we have all those negatives and no drug war successes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
64,000 people die per year from air pollution (according to the Natural Resource Defense Council)... shouldn't we ban those carcinogens? How many people die from marijuana smoke, Dr. Strangelove?
Of course it's not good for you, that's not the point. The point is, when used in moderation, even for long periods of time, marijuana does not present a rabid public health threat. And if you are going to argue its "toxic" properties are cause for prohibition, then I will be forced to cite things more toxic than marijuana smoke. |
You're being disingenious. Without the ability to make an accurate count of dope smokers and to quantify how much they smoke there is no way to come up with an accurate record.
In the news recently a public health official extrapolating the relative carcinogenicity of marijuana, and taking into account the number of marijuana users believed to be in the country and the amount they're believed to smoke, estimated some 30,000 deaths/year. But wait, that was in Great Britain. The US has a popuklation four times greater, so the number for the US would be in the ballpark of 120,000.
The problem with this health official's off the cough estimate is that it doesn't take into account that marijuana is still largely a young person's drug. Most people who used it in their youth stop doing so in their twenties or thirties. The fact that it is illegal is probably the major reason why people stop. Since exposure is generally relatively brief the number of lung cancers that can be clearly attributed to just marijuana is probably much smaller than his estimate. of course, if marijuana were to beome legal that could change.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003 07:54
|