2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Betruger]

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than heroin and meth (or its chemical analogs) is given to children.

Whatever. lets discourage the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and the self dosing of dangerous compounds for recreational purposes among children, OK?

Privately, not thru government.

And anecdote is not evidence. Start a new thread if you want to debate it - it's a whole other topic.

[WizWom]

Americans at one point in our history consumed an average of 40 GALLONS a year of alcohol.

Gallons of what? Beer? Wine? Hard?

Neat?

I'm curious... 40 gallons per annum isn't a lot of beer (<1.2 per day if you assume one is 12 fl. oz.), but it's quite a bit of bourbon...

When a yearly consumption is given like this, it means in gallons of pure alcohol; that is, each drink counting it's alcohol content only.

Use peaked in America somewhere around 70 gallons in the 1880s

[WizWom]

Drugs, CREATE addiction.

simply: no

Addiction is a state of mind; the predilection for it is in the mind by a likely inherited factor. Drugs don't "hook" everybody who takes them; they hook those who need something to fill a hole. Even if drugs had not been invented, these people would be addicted to something.

How in the world can you say that? By what bit of arcane wizardry could you possibly have come by the knowledge that drugs addicts have some sort of social genotype?

I can say that because I actually pay attention to minor things like research in the field and facts.

"Family, adoption and twin data each support substantial heritability for addictions. Most of this heritable influence is not substance-specific."
“Higher order” addiction molecular genetics: Convergent data from genome-wide association in humans and mice


[quote="Diogenes"

And really, we've pointed out the experimental programs in other countries to give away drugs to whoever wants, and they have REDUCED the number of addicts.

Yeah, like "Needles Park" in Switzerland where every morning the coroner's staff comes to the park to clean up all the dead bodies lying around from the overdoses. I can see how killing of the addicts would reduce drug usage. Puts an entirely different light on "REDUCED the number of addicts."

Last I heard, they canceled the program. [/quote]

http://www.swissworld.org/en/people/dru ... ard_drugs/
"The trend [in drug deaths] had been generally falling since the mid-1990s, after reaching a record of 419 in 1992."
Deaths have averaged ~190 with an addict population of 30,000, or 1 per 150

with an addict population of 9.5 million (~2.95%), America has 38,000 deaths, or 1 per 250.

Switzerland is seeing a higher addict death rate. But it does not matter.

Because the issue is whether it is our RIGHT to do whatever we want to our body, REGARDLESS of the harm it does to us.

[MSimon]

Because the issue is whether it is our RIGHT to do whatever we want to our body, REGARDLESS of the harm it does to us.

Quite so. Do we own ourselves or are we just cattle on the BIG GOVERNMENT cattle ranch?

[KitemanSA]

Drugs do not cause addiction. People pursuading others to take drugs cause addiction.

No, it's the drugs. You can persuade someone to try something all you want, and if you haven't got the drugs, they will remain unaddicted.
They cannot become addicted to something they haven't tried. It is the chemical binding to the appropriate cells that initiates the addiction if the individual is susceptible to it. You're chain of causality is too long.

Not quite true. With many people, if you pursuade them to try gambling, or sky-diving, or anything else that gives a big endorphine surge, they will become addicted to whatever caused that surge. Drugs are only one path, and often the LEAST adverse path to addiction. Please understand that I differentiate between the DRUG effects and the drug WAR effects. The drug WAR effects are pretty damned nasty, and why any concerned individual would want to do that to someone is beyond me. Guess that proves that politicians as a whole are NOT concerned individuals.

[KitemanSA]

And really, we've pointed out the experimental programs in other countries to give away drugs to whoever wants, and they have REDUCED the number of addicts.

Yeah, like "Needles Park" in Switzerland where every morning the coroner's staff comes to the park to clean up all the dead bodies lying around from the overdoses. I can see how killing of the addicts would reduce drug usage. Puts an entirely different light on "REDUCED the number of addicts."
Last I heard, they canceled the program.

Where did you come up with that "dead bodies lying around" stuff? Here is an acount of WHY they closed the park.

The program worked: by early this year, the incidence of new AIDS cases had dropped from 50% to 5%. (Overall, 20% of Zurich's addicts have tested HIV positive.) Trouble was, the Platzspitz also became a magnet for professional dealers, especially Lebanese, Yugoslav and Turkish gangs that overran small dealers in a violent price war.

Since it was still illegal, just not suppressed, the violence related to cornering the market of such irresponsibly regulated merchandise caused "unintended consequences". Gee, what a surprise. If it had been LEGAL to sell drugs, responsible businesses would have been protected and the violence would have been avoided. There are VERY few (read none) cases of voilence in cornering the liquer market in the US. There used to be, when it was illegal. See a trend?

Oh, and yet again, the bodies were not from the DRUGS but from the drug WAR. When will you learn?

You seem incapable of or perhaps unwilling to read the literature.

Yeah, i'm a moron.

Well, if that is how you feel about yourself, I won't argue.

Listen, if Boeing publishes a report stating that a Lockheed aircraft is superior to theirs, I'll believe them. If they say instead, that their aircraft is superior to the Lockheed, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

WOW! the man has decided to stop listening to the government propaganda about drugs and actually think for himself. VICTORY!!!!
But I guess he really means that not-for-profit research groups are "Boeing" and the govm't is pure as the driven snow. Yup, the govm't has succeeded in another snow-job!

I feel the same way about literature from people with an agenda, especially when the conclusions contradict my own first hand knowledge.

First hand knowledge? What FIRST hand knowledge do you have. Details please.

[MSimon]

KitemanSA,

Something that I find amusing is that if you scratch most pro-drug war people you will find that generally they are the least likely to believe that government is efficient and generally they believe that government lies. Except for the drug war. Yeah. Right.

Of course then you have the lefties who believe government is a force for good. Except the drug war.

My thought is that the government lies and is hardly ever efficient. In all matters.

The Drug War is the CAGW of the Right. Just another excuse for power and control.

[Helius]

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than heroin and meth (or its chemical analogs) is given to children.

Whatever. lets discourage the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and the self dosing of dangerous compounds for recreational purposes among children, OK?

Privately, not thru government.

And anecdote is not evidence. Start a new thread if you want to debate it - it's a whole other topic.

Ram drunk drivers off the road?

If I know a fellow student is armed with Quaaludes and roofies and hitting the bars in search of young women, should the response be to lecture him?

You folks ignore that psychoactive substances effect the decision making process, making the individual, not only a danger to himself, but others too.

Insofar as an "anecdote is not evidence" You guys are full of 'em! It's funny. Things like " I had a beer when I was five, and I wasn't addicted" and another gem: "The first 10 people whom tried Herion, didn't become addicted." Those are just from memory. That's fine though. I just don't want a shiftless young man hitting the bars with a pocket full of roofies, or another drunk young man making a drive decision like "should I drive home" while he is already under the influence of a snootfull.

[MSimon]

If I know a fellow student is armed with Quaaludes and roofies and hitting the bars in search of young women, should the response be to lecture him?

Yes. Tell him that alcohol works quite well for the purpose and is legal.

[MSimon]

"The first 10 people whom tried Herion, didn't become addicted."

I provided that information to explain why heroin was an over the counter medicine in the US for 30 years.

Now you have to ask yourself - if heroin was so bad why it took 30 years to go from over the counter to totally illegal? And how did the republic survive the over the counter era?

And then you have to ask yourself why you are aligned with the Progressives of the 1900s? And why you are not aligned with the Conservatives of 1900 who were against Drug Prohibition and Alcohol Prohibition.

Or to put it more directly: why are you a Progressive Conservative? Or am I thinking of some one else?

You know that government doesn't work very well and thus should be limited. Except for the Drug War. Too funny. Guess what. About 75% of Americans believe the Drug War doesn't work. So you were right the first time.

Since you are such an expert on drugs, have you read this?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lib ... cumenu.htm

If not your education is lacking.

Now to go on. If as the government drug research arm (NIDA) says drug addiction is in part genetic is it fair to punish people for the nature of their bodies? BTW the medical profession has come to that conclusion as well and treats drug use as self medication.

The NIDA says that addiction is a two part problem.

1. Genetic susceptibility
2. Environmental factors

I can make a good case that the environmental factor is trauma.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ystem.html

So then I want to know what is moral about punishing the genetically susceptible traumatized?

Want more? Here is a report on heroin that says that the vast majority of female heroin users were victims of childhood sexual assault:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

Why you want those women to be further punished? If heroin brings them relief why can't they have it? What is your moral objection to pain relief? If the pain is from your arm pain relief is OK, but if it is from the amygdala and associated brain structures pain relief should be forbidden? That sounds like superstition to me.

"Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful" Friedrich Nietzsche

Well any way, it would seem that pain relief is a bigger attractant than punishment is a deterrent. Perhaps we can decree a change in body chemistry. Congress could pass a law. We could outlaw people with defective body chemistry and send them to prison, because killing them outright would have so many unfortunate connotations. Maybe we could forcibly sterilize them so they can't pass on their defective traits. That would be acceptable don't you think. And it is a very Progressive idea.

Putting the criminal justice system in charge of treating drug addiction is literally attempting to do brain surgery with a billy club.

And of course that is just the kind of society we all want to live in. Secret police (the only way to police consensual "crimes") and severe punishments. Didn't they used to have a name for such places? Oh yeah. I remember it now. A police state. Well it has worked out well every where it has been tried. Crime goes way down. Why not here? That liberty thing is way over rated when compared to order. Disorder is so - how shall I put it - messy.

[KitemanSA]

If I know a fellow student is armed with Quaaludes and roofies and hitting the bars in search of young women, should the response be to lecture him?

Actually, unless you are pretty darn sure his intent is to offer them to the young ladies to be taken voluntarily then perhaps you should call the police in that a crime (assault with a mind altering chemical) is about to occur. Also, since you specified roofies, the subsquent action of the assault will probably be rape, another crime.

Is it really the case that you cannot distinguish between a crime (slipping someone a drug without their persmission) and a vice (taking a drug of your own volition)? Or are you just determined to be silly?

Oh, and by the way, if your fellow student succeeds in slipping the roofies to the young lady, should she be penalized as a drug user? If not, doesn't that pretty much tell you that using drugs is not immoral (a crime) per-se?

[Diogenes]

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than heroin and meth (or its chemical analogs) is given to children.

BTW anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing.

It may not fly in your court, but in the court of MY opinion, if it is something i've personally witnessed, it's as good as gold.

If you really want to know the literature may I suggest you start with this Consumer's Union report:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lib ... cumenu.htm

Your science is weak and your anecdotes are strong. Which is why I call The Drug War the CAGW of conservatives. i.e. Progressive Conservatives are immune to facts on the subject. I consider you an outstanding example of the species.

Why thank you, it's always good to be outstanding in something! I consider you to be outstanding at strawman arguing. Most of my opinions and philosophies look pretty contorted after you're done describing them back to me.

Also note: we have all seen what alcohol does to some people. Why no call for alcohol prohibition? After all alcohol kills far more people than heroin. Also note: the folks who over use alcohol tend to be the same people who over use other drugs. They are called polydrug users.

Alcohol does indeed kill a lot of people, and I dare say a lot more INNOCENT people than does any other drug. Why is the drug which is the number one killer of innocent people not banned? Because humans are a fickle sort, and often (usually) motivated by feelings and emotions as opposed to reason. At the moment, people are perfectly tolerant with the death rate from alcohol.

So alcohol is a BIG problem. Why not switch problem users to heroin which is not near as hard on the body? Assuming you really cared. Which I do not believe for a moment. You are just looking for people to punish.

"Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful" Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm not a big follower of Fred. But in this case I think he has a point.

Now see, this is what i'm talking about. You are claiming i'm trying to "Punish" people by preventing them from obtaining narcotics to tamper with their biological system. Isn't that backwards? I guess if you stop a suicide from jumping, is that also "punishing?"

IMO the only valid use of government is to punish A for DIRECTLY harming B. If A is harming A then it is none of the government's business.

In my mind, this is another one of those "boundary" issues. The belief that there is a boundary, when in reality there isn't.

A harming A, might also harm B, C, and D, depending on how A is harming A. It might not be directly, but indirectly may still result in serious consequences.

For example, if "A" is a parent, and likes to spend so much time getting high that they are neglecting their children, or they are neglecting to work, instead drawing a welfare check, in which case they are harming other citizens by undeservedly taking their money.

Of course I don't just mouth the words "limited government". I really believe it. No doubt a failing on my part.

One could argue that a person intent on using a mind altering substance can be regarded as non compos mentis, and therefore, someone the government needs to protect from themselves. (You know, like a mental patient.)

I do believe any power given to the government to do "good" will eventually be used to do evil. Thus I prefer to do what ever good is required personally. Conservatives used to think like that.

It's a funny thing, the way you characterize this "do good" notion of government. I personally consider the government "doing good" when they prevent crime. I consider the government "doing good" when they defend the nation. I consider the government "doing good" when they Mitigate disputes between different parties. Putting it another way, I consider the government to "do good" when it just does it's D@mn Job!
I consider the government interdicting controlled substances as a normal part of it's job. Whether it be Semtex, cyanide, Strychnine, LSD, TNT or whatever, controlling dangerous substances is part of what it should do.

As my brother Jeff used to say:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

I feel the same and tend to err on the same side.

I call for a division of labor: let the government deal with crime and let the churches go after vice.

There's that boundary thing again. A vice is a vice because people CALL it a vice. A crime is a crime because people CALL it a crime. It is an entirely subjective difference. In reality, they are both actions with varying probabilities of consequences. The boundary distinctions are artificial and subjective.

Just as a carbon tax has done nothing to retard the production of CO2 in places it has been enacted so too has the drug war done nothing significant in impeding the flow of drugs. Yet in both cases a class of criminals has been greatly enriched. I wonder what the common thread is?

Your contention that making drugs illegal makes them equally or more abundant than making them legal is just nonsense.

The government has delivered on none of its promises re: the drug war. Heroin is 600 times cheaper than it was 40 years ago. And yet you ask for more.


The only places that vices are even somewhat effectively policed are police states. And those are subject to vast corruption. And what segment of the population is most effectively policed for vice? The poor. Because the rich can talk or buy their way out.

Class warfare all the way. No doubt a prime conservative value.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... s-war.html

Personally I think class warfare is a Progressive Value. I against the war of the poor on the rich and the war of the rich on the poor.

Putting the criminal justice system in charge of treating drug addiction is literally attempting to do brain surgery with a truncheon.

People cannot be addicted to something they have never come in contact with. Prior to Meth being invented, NOBODY was addicted to it.

[Diogenes]

Some things may be bad for you. If you violate YOURSELF, (drugs) you are indulging in vice. (Ethics)

What if you want to cut off both your legs because it arouses you sexually? (or Put whatever action in here sufficient for you to concede the person is crazy and needs to be protected from themselves till they can be cured.)

I'm just trying to figure out how you define boundaries and legitimate government concerns. Once we establish a baseline, we can move it until we find a boundary, and then you can explain why that boundary is there. Hopefully i'll be able to understand then.

Not my cup-o-tea. I can't really think that it is any-one else's either.

In science, one null result can disprove a theory. It doesn't matter how many predictions a theory makes that are true, if it predicts one thing which is false it is done.

Philosophy is also like that. Find one hole in the argument, and the argument is rubbish. There are indeed people who want to chop off body parts because of a mental condition. "Apotemnophilia" and "Acrotomophilia". Look em up.


The point is, do you think these people have a right to mutilate themselves, or are they mentally ill and should be protected from doing something to themselves that they will later regret?


Does libertarian philosophy recognize any form of protecting people from themselves? If so, should we let out all the mental patients?

So I can't play this "what-if". If you can convince me that somehow being crazy means that someone is NOT "people" and therefore can be owned by another person who there-after has the right to do with their property as they wish and prevent that not-person from such activity, good luck. I don't think is it gonna happen.

Just tell me your opinion on mental patients, and we can go from there.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes:

IMO the only valid use of government is to punish A for DIRECTLY harming B. If A is harming A then it is none of the government's business. Of course I don't just mouth the words "limited government". I really believe it. No doubt a failing on my part.

MSimon ALMOST has it correct. The goverment should help B "punish" A if A harms B... without B's permission. B has the right to VOLUNTARY action. If A has involved B in an action involuntarily, than A has done wrong (immorality). If A is harming A, then A is doing something bad (unethical), which is none of the governments business, unless A is doing the government's business at the time.

What if A is doing this?

What if A is spending so much time getting high that they aren't taking care of their responsibilities, like feeding their children?

[Diogenes]

Not your intent, merely your responsibilty. And your intent does not in any way absolve you of your responsibility. The road to hell is paved with such irresponsibility.

As the topic is ostensibly "lying about my intentions." then the results of aforementioned intentions are not germane to the topic. My intentions are what they are, they are not something else.

I am pointing out that equivalence of outcome is not equivalence of intent.

Interesting. My take on this sub-topic had nothing to do with you "lying" about your intentions. My point was that the purity of your intentions did not absolve you of the responsibilty for the forseeable results of your actions.

And that is a completely separate and irrelevant point. Let's just say you are correct about this. You still should not accuse someone of intending to shoot a child when they are shooting at a deer with no knowledge that a child is nearby.

THAT is what I am talking about. MSimon alleges the government WANTS to empower criminals. No they do not. That may be the outcome, but it is most definitely not their goal.

Now if you are calling your wife a liar, no wait, you think she is calling you a liar because she accused you of intending to burn her butt...

Whatever the case, your action causes the seat to be hot. Be responsible, be a man.

Be a logical thinker. Don't pump useless and irrelevant bullshit into a hypothetical situation created solely for the purpose of getting a point across.

In fact of the matter, I ALWAYS leave my windows down, and My wife has her own car anyway.