Ronald Reagan, the Greatest President Of My Lifetime

[TallDave]

Here I thought I was advocating that people DON'T screw up
their brains,

Actually, you were advocating the government kidnap, imprison, and impoverish people who screw up their brains in ways arbitrarily made illegal, at a cost of trillions of dollars and numerous freedoms, while other ways of screwing up their brains are arbitrarily sanctioned. I'd say that sort of thought process can only emanate from brains screwed up in some fashion or another.


Tom,

My sister and some friends of hers are heading there soon (medics get six-figure pay, and tax-free). She's been in Antarctica this past year. From penguins to Pashtun!

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

There was a news piece on Yahoo today, stating the perplexing statistic that alcohol abusers live longer than tee-totallers! This is despite the obvious bad effects of alcohol abuse. Go figure!

"Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers, Study Finds," By John Cloud – Mon Aug 30, 6:50 am ET, TIME

Moderate uses of alcohol live the longest.

But even if this were not the case, just what is the case for protecting idiots from themselves? I'm all for shutting down drunk drivers, who endanger me, but if a drunk dissolves his liver, well, hell, we've pretty much twarted natural selection as is.

The conservatives whine about Obamacare and the nanny-state. The libertarian approach says it is none of the government's business what people do to their own bodies. An Islamic state would say it is very much the government's business, and the offender should be killed.

Which of these is actually the American Way?

I'm not in favor of substance abuse. Apart from a statin and the occasional over-the-counter allergy med or headache pill, I don't use drugs. I drink a glass or two of red wine a week. I am in favor of education, and making people aware of the consequences of their actions. I am in favor of free choice. I am also in favor of the survival of those who choose well.

Is there some percentage of population addiction that would cause you to change your mind about this? This example comes to mind.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

[Diogenes]

Here I thought I was advocating that people DON'T screw up
their brains,

Actually, you were advocating the government kidnap, imprison, and impoverish people who screw up their brains in ways arbitrarily made illegal, at a cost of trillions of dollars and numerous freedoms, while other ways of screwing up their brains are arbitrarily sanctioned. I'd say that sort of thought process can only emanate from brains screwed up in some fashion or another.!

Is there some percentage of population addiction that would cause you to change your mind about this? This example comes to mind.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

[Betruger]

Can you give an example of something that "Diogenes would like to brainwash others into thinking"? Here I thought I was advocating that people DON'T screw up their brains

That's a vague way to put it. What you've argued in every post of yours I've seen is forcing people to not use drugs by prohibition. You argue for the removal of their right to use. In principle. In practice you're effectively (and IIRC explicitly) arguing for all the other consequences of a govt "war on __" prohibition.

Which of these is actually the American Way?

I'm not in favor of substance abuse. [...] I am in favor of education, and making people aware of the consequences of their actions. I am in favor of free choice. I am also in favor of the survival of those who choose well.

This matches my POV. You're not arguing for the American Way. You're trying to convince others, with weak arguments like "people are incapable of grasping the potential dangers of use" which is not credible technically, that the American Way (unless I missed where you admit your stance is un-American) must be curtailed or deferred to some later time when prohibition the antithesis of individual responsibility and resourcefulness that's at the heart of the American Way can be lifted...

Which is not credible either since that's just favoring a trend towards less individual responsibility and resourcefulness which kicks off a vicious circle, a positive feedback of diminishing "American" and increasing Government.

[Diogenes]

Can you give an example of something that "Diogenes would like to brainwash others into thinking"? Here I thought I was advocating that people DON'T screw up their brains

That's a vague way to put it. What you've argued in every post of yours I've seen is forcing people to not use drugs by prohibition. You argue for the removal of their right to use. In principle. In practice you're effectively (and IIRC explicitly) arguing for all the other consequences of a govt "war on __" prohibition.

Which of these is actually the American Way?

I'm not in favor of substance abuse. [...] I am in favor of education, and making people aware of the consequences of their actions. I am in favor of free choice. I am also in favor of the survival of those who choose well.

I want to know if you REALLY believe in your philosophy, or does it at some point like Newton's equations, break down under pressure?


Is there some percentage of population addiction that would cause you to change your mind about this? This example comes to mind.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

I don't want to hear any arguments along the line of "THAT WON'T HAPPEN!" This would be dodging the question. Obviously it's happened in the past, and despite assurances from all of you, I have little doubt that it would happen again if it were allowed to.

Would you still believe in the "Freedom to drug yourself" if the level of addiction was 50% ? If you say "YES!" then I give you credit for being true to your philosophy, but I question your judgment and sanity for believing any such society could long endure.

How about it? 50% addiction rate acceptable? Say yes. Don't pussyfoot around. Stand up for your conviction so that people can see it is a waste of time to attempt to pry your mind off of this dogma.


Say no, and you're theory/philosophy is blown to smithereens.


Like the song "Paradise by the Dashboard light" says, "What's it gonna be boy, Yes or No? "

[Betruger]

See, another non sequitur. You have your pet fave article and change the argument to that, instead of answering what I said. And you already asked that twice above, also in big colored text. Do you really think people are that thick?

What does it take for you to debate properly?

I want to know if you REALLY believe in your philosophy, or does it at some point like Newton's equations, break down under pressure?

Totally unclear. What are you talking about? How much I believe in something? What does that have to do with whether or not it's correct?

Is there some percentage of population addiction that would cause you to change your mind about this? This example comes to mind.

Is that a bandwagon appeal?

I don't want to hear any arguments along the line of "THAT WON'T HAPPEN!"

So this debate can only include those arguments you favor, anything else, you "don't want to hear" ?

Obviously it's happened in the past, and despite assurances from all of you, I have little doubt that it would happen again if it were allowed to.

I won't speak for anyone else on this one but I haven't assured you it won't happen. That's not what I'm saying and you insisting I am saying it is very doubtfully not a clue that you either don't read, or don't understand what I'm arguing.

I've argued from my very first post that the objective is maximum individual freedom, without infringing on others', and minimum government. This can only happen with a correct national culture. More government, nanny govt solutions like prohibition, incomprehensive solutions like "war on ___", the INSISTENCE that people are too stupid or otherwise INCAPABLE of learning and teaching dangers of life such as drugs' and alcohol's and sex' and so on, that's a fundamentally flawed premise.

The two compare analogously as do many mothers' wish to perpetually protect their kids as opposed to teaching them to be self-reliant. Shielding them from danger and keeping them dependent instead of preparing them to successfully deal with it.

Would you still believe in the "Freedom to drug yourself" if the level of addiction was 50% ? If you say "YES!" then I give you credit for being true to your philosophy, but I question your judgment and sanity for believing any such society could long endure.

Yes, and that that society would be quite possibly doomed isn't what I'm arguing. It's specifically that - dooming society by engineering it to not think for itself - which your big govt solution favors.

How about it? 50% addiction rate acceptable? Say yes. Don't pussyfoot around. Stand up for your conviction so that people can see it is a waste of time to attempt to pry your mind off of this dogma.

Pussyfoot? Want to see this decadence you and a couple of others go on and on about? Look at your giving up liberty for security. Fair weather American.

Say no, and you're theory/philosophy is blown to smithereens.

Hocus Pocus <arm waving> your theory slash philosphy is blown to smithereens!

Like the song "Paradise by the Dashboard light" says, "What's it gonna be boy, Yes or No? "

EEE-AAA EEE-AAA


OOOOOOOOOOH

[Tom Ligon]

Diogenes,

I can think of a drug that probably 80-90% of the US population uses, many to excess. At times I would guess you to be one of them. I speak, of course, of caffine. A couple of times in the history of coffee, the mullahs considered banning it same as booze. Evidently the way it was consumed was a factor. People sat around coffee houses drinking cup after cup of Turkish coffee (ten times stronger than most Americans drink it), while discussing politics and wearing scimitars. Many people were killed.

I think if half or more of the population of the US used, say, mainlined heroin, the population would collapse. And it would deserve to. But they don't . This is not because it is illegal, it is because it is stupid.

It actually is possible for people to learn to do the smart thing, at least some of them.

Now if we could just apply that to eating habits ....

Speaking of which, how many people die of obesity-related causes each year? When do we clamp down and force people to eat what the government says they should eat?

[TallDave]

Is there some percentage of population addiction that would cause you to change your mind about this?

No, there is no percentage at which people lose free will and must have the State start thinking for them.

This example comes to mind.

Yeah, I really doubt the actual proportion of addicts was "half the population." In 1906 you couldn't have hoped to even feed an unproductive "half the population," let alone supply them with opiates.

[Diogenes]

EEE-AAA EEE-AAA


OOOOOOOOOOH

Smartest thing you've said in the entire response. Alas, it was not the answer to the salient point. It is actually an unsurprising response. When the facts are against you, throw bullshit. If you don't want to answer the inconvenient question, you could just say "I don't want to answer that question."

[Betruger]

I answered the rest of your post. That one bit of your post was irrelevant.

Again you selectively answer and sidestep the real arguments. When will you actually address the arguments I and others propose?

[Betruger]

My arguments have always been down-to-earth simple and transparently stated. Same with TallDave's and Tom Ligon's. MSimon's special because he can drop a whole library of facts and astute perspectives at a time, but otherwise his arguments are dead simple too.


E.G. I asked you why people are, according to you, incapable of comprehending and thus be readied for the potential dangers of drug use. What are the fundamental and most-significant (can't think of the right English word) differences here with e.g. Sex Ed?

This is your justification for refusing to replace prohibition with individual legal responsibility when one alters himself with drug use as one does when using alcohol.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,


I think if half or more of the population of the US used, say, mainlined heroin, the population would collapse. And it would deserve to. But they don't . This is not because it is illegal, it is because it is stupid.

God forbid that the population would ever do something stupid! I am glad that you spelled out the distinction between the population of the United States and the Population of China. The Chinese people were stupid, and that couldn't happen to us.

Now if we could just apply that to eating habits ....

Speaking of which, how many people die of obesity-related causes each year? When do we clamp down and force people to eat what the government says they should eat?

A side issue, and an effort to disregard the severe consequences that occurred when opium was legal in China. Anyway, your answer doesn't ring with clarity. It sorta sounds like a "no.", but I can't be sure.

I think your answer is of the form " It wouldn't happen, but the philosophy is too important to stop it if it did." Glad we have our priorities straightened out.


And this is the hill you think society should die upon?

[Diogenes]

Is there some percentage of population addiction that would cause you to change your mind about this?

No, there is no percentage at which people lose free will and must have the State start thinking for them.

Thank God for a straight answer! In this case your philosophy is a flower that blooms and then withers, and then is no more. Were it otherwise, examples would abound, such as China. I say examples DO abound, such as China, they just don't serve your philosophy very well.


Anyways, kudos for a straight answer.

This example comes to mind.

Yeah, I really doubt the actual proportion of addicts was "half the population." In 1906 you couldn't have hoped to even feed an unproductive "half the population," let alone supply them with opiates.

Well, the quote comes from what I believe is one of MSimon's favorite sources: The druglibrary.org. I assume if we are citing it's credibility in support of drug legalization, why would we bicker about it's evidence against it?

You do however have a point. There really is no way to tell exactly what the percentage of addicts were in China back in 1906. It does however miss a point. It was enough to seriously screw up China and fill them with a determination to eradicate the stuff to the point of killing addicts.

This is the body's normal response to cells that turn cancerous, and it is what any organism must do in order to survive. The moral is simple to understand.

That way leads to death.

[Betruger]

So Americans are Chinamen now? Do all the differences between the USA and China count as ceteris paribus now?

[Diogenes]

I answered the rest of your post. That one bit of your post was irrelevant.

Again you selectively answer and sidestep the real arguments. When will you actually address the arguments I and others propose?

From my perspective I am trying to get people to address the salient point by presenting them with a real world example of their theory put into practice.

China was forced to legalize Opium. It f*cked them up! The addicts did not decrease, they INCREASED!


Why would it be different anywhere else?