Liberty Is Dangerous

[Diogenes]

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
-Winston Churchill.-


I trust you are able to mentally substitute the word "prohibition" for democracy.

Except that "democracy" is on the Liberty side and "prohibition" is on the authoritarian side. For your substitution to make sense Churchill's statement would have needed to be "It has been said that monarchy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".

To which I would say, he needs to have his head examined. I trust you can mentally substitute the word "you" and "your" for "he" and "his"?

You can keep telling me what your theory is, but the History of the real world shows that what will happen will not match your theory. As bad as is the difficulties of keeping the chemicals away from children, letting them have them would be far worse.


This is what you guys look like to normal folk.

[KitemanSA]

You can keep telling me what your theory is, but the History of the real world shows that what will happen will not match your theory. As bad as is the difficulties of keeping the chemicals away from children, letting them have them would be far worse.

Which just goes to show that you don't listen worth a darn.
Where did I EVER say that sales to CHILDREN would ever be acceptable?

We are talking ADULTS here dude.

Of course, that may explain a lot, are you in fact an adult? Or have I been talking to a child AS IF he were an adult?

[Skipjack]

I think that drugs and the addiction to drugs is a way to take away peoples free will and replace it with the power to control them. I can see why certain people would want this to be legalized. It would give them the final and total control over the people, the kind that they are currently trying to get, but fail to because of to much resistance in the population that values free will...

[CKay]

Iadajo, so many logical fallacies in that rambling post of yours...

You have argued that pot smokers are safer drivers because they drive slower and are less agressive.

Strawman - where did I say that?

Any one who uses drugs takes a much higher risk in assigning involuntary risk to others, enough so that strict controls and disincentives are called for.

Okay, there's plenty of evidence to show that those who drink are a risk to others, so let's ban alcohol.

I guarantee you that I can addict you to cocaine

I guarantee you that, even if you forced me to consume cocaine every day for a month, I wouldn't subsequently desire cocaine.

If you are a former user, then you of all should understand the risk of using ever again.

It seems that you're conflating "user" with "addict" (because anyone who has ever used any drug must have been addicted to said drug - which would make you an alcoholic).

By your arguments of "Free Will"

Another strawman - I haven't made any arguments regarding free will.

You have no real idea of what you are talking about.

I have a good idea - a fair amount of first hand experience - of what I'm talking about. More than enough to see the false premises upon which your confused arguments are based.

If you think drugs are so safe, why not take them?

Yet another strawman - nowhere have I said that drugs are safe. Using recreational drugs involves risks - risks that will vary from one drug to another. Indeed all recreational activities involve some degree of risk.

You then go on to imply that if a thing is considered safe then one must try it, an obvious non-sequitur.

Stop being so selfish and figure out that there is an entire planet full of people besides you.

"Oh the humanity!"... an appeal to emotion and an ad hominem for good measure.

I think that it is the prohibitionists who are selfish in foisting upon the World a strategy that owes more to irrational prejudice and moral panic than a reasoned assessment of the issues, that reduces negative liberty, punishes those who have harmed nobody (an imperative moral wrong), and that has exactly the opposite effect to its nominal aim of reducing harms.

[Diogenes]

You can keep telling me what your theory is, but the History of the real world shows that what will happen will not match your theory. As bad as is the difficulties of keeping the chemicals away from children, letting them have them would be far worse.

Which just goes to show that you don't listen worth a darn.
Where did I EVER say that sales to CHILDREN would ever be acceptable?

And I thought nothing would make me laugh harder than that Calvin rant comic I posted.

We are talking ADULTS here dude.

Sure you are.

Of course, that may explain a lot, are you in fact an adult? Or have I been talking to a child AS IF he were an adult?

Yes, you've been arguing with a 5 year old child and coming off the worse for it.

[ladajo]

Ckay,

I have a clear position and clear reasons to stick by it.

You surruptiously act like you were a "successful" user. It is borderline trolling and half-truths.
In what context did you see and touch your "real kilo of pure cocaine"?
How are you so sure that YOU are magically cocaine proof?

What do you base your personal knowledge on?

I have told you what I base mine on. In case you missed it: Professional experiences dealing with drugs, suppliers (sources/movers) and users in a US and Global context, professional education, personal experiences to include a sister and brother (now deceased as a result of addiction) and studies. I have been responsible for the seizure of tons of cocaine, marijuana, opiates and traffickers. I have provided support to others who have done the same. I have done this in US Federal, Military and International Cooperative contexts.

I guarantee that I can make you dependant (addicted) to cocaine to include physiological responses as I have referenced in the many links to studies, analysis of studies and commentary that you continue to ignore.
I know it can be done, because I have seen it done. Have you?

Once again, I do not think the current system is working. However, I also do not see a viable alternative yet. Legalization is not it. I do think that one of the most effective means to attack is the profit motive for suppliers. Either disrupt the profit chain, and/or encourage them to do something better. How is no simple task.

"punishes those who have harmed nobody"

Again, the basis of your argument is flawed.
Taking drugs, knowing that they have a significant chance of leading to dependancy and loss of self control is a clear choice of self over others. Knowing that dependancy itself can become a burden to society and still risking it is selfish.
Knowing the potential immediate and long term effects regarding loss of judgement, cognitive issues, irrational behaviours and other medical issues that can bring involuntary risk to others is selfish and morally wrong.
However, by your reasoning, it is a-ok-fine. "leave the harmless drug user in the corner by himself. He's not going to hurt anyone but himself." This is clearly misguided and selfish.

You have nothing but a fishing pole and the ability to become addicted.

[CKay]

You surruptiously act like you were a "successful" user. It is borderline trolling and half-truths.
In what context did you see and touch your "real kilo of pure cocaine"?
How are you so sure that YOU are magically cocaine proof?

I'm not about to give you my life story, particularly as my real name is alongside this post. I've seen plenty. You're going to just have to trust me on that (as you would anyway, whatever I said).

I know that the only effect that taking coke would have upon me would be to make me feel sketchy, strung out and truly dreadful: no buzz, no reward = no desire to take more, no matter how much was forced upon me. Like I said before, horrible stuff.

I know it can be done, because I have seen it done. Have you?

Have you? I mean really watched as someone had cocaine forced on them until they became addicted? What on earth where you doing whilst all this was going on?

Once again, I do not think the current system is working. However, I also do not see a viable alternative yet.

Look at what the Portuguese have done. It seems to be working and, no, it's not legalization.

[CKay]

Taking drugs, knowing that they have a significant chance of leading to dependancy and loss of self control is a clear choice of self over others. Knowing that dependancy itself can become a burden to society and still risking it is selfish. Knowing the potential immediate and long term effects regarding loss of judgement, cognitive issues, irrational behaviours and other medical issues that can bring involuntary risk to others is selfish and morally wrong.

Then surely your consumption of alcohol is selfish and morally wrong?

And of course that argument applies to any recreational activity that might result in one becoming a burden to society (falling off a horse and becoming a paraplegic, for example), or might conceivably cause injury to others (the horse your riding rears up and clobbers someone).

Talking of burdens on society, when do we start fining people for failing to take care of their health - those who don't exercise enough, eat badly, the fat, the feckless?

[CKay]

woops - unintended post

[KitemanSA]

Of course, that may explain a lot, are you in fact an adult? Or have I been talking to a child AS IF he were an adult?

Yes, you've been arguing with a 5 year old child and coming off the worse for it.

That would explain a lot. A fiveyear old can't lose an argument. All he says is "won't won't won't" and thinks he has gotten the better of the adult who chooses to ignore him. Poor, ignorant child.

[Betruger]

Once again, I do not think the current system is working. However, I also do not see a viable alternative yet. Legalization is not it. I do think that one of the most effective means to attack is the profit motive for suppliers. Either disrupt the profit chain, and/or encourage them to do something better. How is no simple task.

Getting to sound like a broken record here, but governmental solutions will only ever mitigate. Unless the population turns into mindless drones, at which point government is the ideal solution. The solution that corresponds to a population that's free (supposed to be, at least) as the USA's is a cultural one. There's not much to argue in that respect because this is one of those solutions that's self-evident when the problem is defined clearly enough.

"Condemned to be free". And brave, as ought to be in this case.

The drug "problem" is a cultural failure, not a governmental one. These govt solutions are round pegs to drugs' square hole - with a big enough hammer..

[Diogenes]

Once again, I do not think the current system is working. However, I also do not see a viable alternative yet. Legalization is not it. I do think that one of the most effective means to attack is the profit motive for suppliers. Either disrupt the profit chain, and/or encourage them to do something better. How is no simple task.

Getting to sound like a broken record here, but governmental solutions will only ever mitigate. Unless the population turns into mindless drones, at which point government is the ideal solution. The solution that corresponds to a population that's free (supposed to be, at least) as the USA's is a cultural one. There's not much to argue in that respect because this is one of those solutions that's self-evident when the problem is defined clearly enough.

"Condemned to be free". And brave, as ought to be in this case.

The drug "problem" is a cultural failure, not a governmental one. These govt solutions are round pegs to drugs' square hole - with a big enough hammer..

I have pointed out to you that while the "government" solution may have problems, it works better than anything else which has been tried.

Do you have a better suggestion?

[ladajo]

You surruptiously act like you were a "successful" user. It is borderline trolling and half-truths.
In what context did you see and touch your "real kilo of pure cocaine"?
How are you so sure that YOU are magically cocaine proof?

I'm not about to give you my life story, particularly as my real name is alongside this post. I've seen plenty. You're going to just have to trust me on that (as you would anyway, whatever I said).

I know that the only effect that taking coke would have upon me would be to make me feel sketchy, strung out and truly dreadful: no buzz, no reward = no desire to take more, no matter how much was forced upon me. Like I said before, horrible stuff.

I know it can be done, because I have seen it done. Have you?

Have you? I mean really watched as someone had cocaine forced on them until they became addicted? What on earth where you doing whilst all this was going on?

Once again, I do not think the current system is working. However, I also do not see a viable alternative yet.

Look at what the Portuguese have done. It seems to be working and, no, it's not legalization.

In order:
I belive you have had some experience. But not enough IMO to base your sweeping opinion on.

Yes. That is not for this forum, nor ever will be.

I believe that some level of criminalization is going to be always neccessary. Just like it is for alcohol and other substances. That said, the risk of giving general populace access to some substances is way higher than denying access. This is based on the death spiral risk with use.

[CKay]

I belive you have had some experience. But not enough IMO to base your sweeping opinion on.

What "sweeping opinion"?

Yes. That is not for this forum, nor ever will be.

If that was in answer to my question, "Have you? I mean really watched as someone had cocaine forced on them until they became addicted? What on earth where you doing whilst all this was going on?"; sorry, I just don't believe you. *shrug*

[ladajo]

I think that it is the prohibitionists who are selfish in foisting upon the World a strategy that owes more to irrational prejudice and moral panic than a reasoned assessment of the issues, that reduces negative liberty, punishes those who have harmed nobody (an imperative moral wrong), and that has exactly the opposite effect to its nominal aim of reducing harms.

and part two is not my problem nor concern.