The Democrat's 2012 Victory Plan

[palladin9479]

And before you continue your tirade, remember we already have historical documentation on what happens when you use prohibition.

Ethyl hydroxide was legal for production, distribution and sale, as was THC. US Government decides to outlaw the production, distribution and sale of Ethyl hydroxide, THC amongst other substances.

This caused a massive spike in crime, with it's assorted monetary and social costs. Gangs (Mafia) become dominate in the production, sale and distribution of the Ethyl hydroxide drug. They killed each other, and innocent civilians as they fought over control of territory. It's all rather well known.

Then eventually the US Government repealed the prohibition of Ethyl hydroxide. This resulted in an immediate reduction in Ethyl hydroxide related crimes. The money that was going to fund criminal enterprises was now being sent to private Ethyl hydroxide production companies and the US government in the form of taxes. Ending Ethyl hydroxide prohibition reduced crime and saved the Government money, this isn't debatable.

In the previous post I demonstrated how Ethyl hydroxide is more dangerous, both to the individual and to society then THC is. And if removing prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide resulted in a social position, then it stands to reason that removing Ethyl hydroxide on THC would do much the same.

So again it is illogical to support prohibition on THC without also supporting prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide. Anyone trying to argue this ends up sounding like a politician, or a southern baptist preacher.

In fact, ending the prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide was so good, I'm going to go home tonight and celebrate the event by consuming some myself.

[Diogenes]

When comparing alcohol and other mind altering drugs for addiction, keep in mind that unlike most mind altering drugs ethanol doesn't bind to neural receptors. Given that change in activity I'd not be surprised to find a vast difference in addiction profile.

True, except the one I'm comparing it to is THC, which we already know how it works. There is no addiction formed with THC, unlike Nicotine which does form a physical addiction. THC is actually extremely mild compared to alcohol, really alcohol is a poison and your body treats it as such. It's completely illogical for someone to support prohibition against THC but support the legal sale of Alcohol. And I tend to ignore illogical people.

None of this makes sense (the comparison between THC and Opium) in light of the fact that China developed a major widespread addiction.

[Diogenes]

When comparing alcohol and other mind altering drugs for addiction, keep in mind that unlike most mind altering drugs ethanol doesn't bind to neural receptors. Given that change in activity I'd not be surprised to find a vast difference in addiction profile.

True, except the one I'm comparing it to is THC, which we already know how it works. There is no addiction formed with THC, unlike Nicotine which does form a physical addiction. THC is actually extremely mild compared to alcohol, really alcohol is a poison and your body treats it as such. It's completely illogical for someone to support prohibition against THC but support the legal sale of Alcohol. And I tend to ignore illogical people.

Let me make something very clear. *YOU* may be arguing for the legalization of Marijuana. MSimon (who general drives these debates) is arguing for the legalization of ANY AND ALL DRUGS, including Heroine, Crack, Meth, LSD, or whatever.

So, the FOCUS of the debate is whether or not HARD drugs should be legalized. Marijuana is merely a footnote in this discussion.

[Diogenes]

As I've already said, proof exists today of exactly what will happen.

When the alcohol prohibition ended there wasn't sky rocketing "addiction" to alcohol. THC doesn't form a physical addiction, it's actually less addicting the nicotine and alcohol.

Proof exists today? Only if you say that the effects of Alcohol and the Effects of Hard Drugs are exactly equal. I don't believe that to be the case. The closest thing we have to a real world experiment with the legalization of hard drugs is China, and that turned out TERRIBLE.

I really know I shouldn't feel the trolls, but here goes.

Your using a straw-man argument, and you know it. At no point in time did I mention legalizing all Schedule I drugs. The only one I specifically mentioned was THC due to it being a major source of expense and a potential source of tax income.

Now your next response will be to attempt to link it with Cocain / Heroin due to it being a Schedule I substance. I will now defeat that argument before you can make it.

Define "hard drugs", what exactly is the requirement for a substance to be considered so detrimental to society that it need be banned? Knowing this requirement is essential to the debate as otherwise your just making vague and emotionally charged statements.

Does a "hard drug" need to be extremely addictive? Nicotine fits that category, along with caffeine and even gambling.

Does it need to form a physical addiction that cause's negative withdrawal symptoms? Nicotine does that, as does caffeine and a host of
other legal substances.

Does it need to cause physical damage to the human body? Ethyl hydroxide cause's immense damage to the human body, it's a toxin and a human can easily ingest a lethal dose. Every year many young college students kill themselves at parties by over dosing on Ethyl hydroxide.

Does it need to alter the mind enough for the human to cause destructive behavior? Ethyl hydroxide not only cripples the judgement of the human, it exasperates their emotional state leading to depression and violent angry behaviors. Every year people die due to someone operating a motor vehicle while their judgements are impaired via consumption of Ethyl hydroxide. Every year people get angry and physically injure people due to over consumption of Ethyl hydroxide.

THC doesn't fall into any of those categories for danger, yet our favorite recreational drug Ethyl hydroxide does. If THC is a Schedule I drug, so should be Ethyl hydroxide.

Now on to the root of the issue, that you have no actual argument and instead just throw around emotionally charged language. Not a single statement you've made is founded in logic or rational. It's just a bunch of political talking points backed up with cherry picked historical snippets. The mass poverty and poor economy in China had more to do with their problem then the legalization of opium.

Now I know your going to reply to this with some angry posts, attempt red hearing and false dichotomy. Go on and on about "drugs are bad" and "destroys society". All without actually answering the above questions I asked. The more you post the more I'm convinced you'd be a model politician.

How about I just point out that we ARE arguing about Hard drugs? Don't take my word for it. Just ask MSimon.

[Diogenes]

And before you continue your tirade, remember we already have historical documentation on what happens when you use prohibition.

We have MORE (Historical documentation and bad consequences) about what happens when you don't; "China."

Ethyl hydroxide was legal for production, distribution and sale, as was THC. US Government decides to outlaw the production, distribution and sale of Ethyl hydroxide, THC amongst other substances.

This caused a massive spike in crime, with it's assorted monetary and social costs. Gangs (Mafia) become dominate in the production, sale and distribution of the Ethyl hydroxide drug. They killed each other, and innocent civilians as they fought over control of territory. It's all rather well known.

Then eventually the US Government repealed the prohibition of Ethyl hydroxide. This resulted in an immediate reduction in Ethyl hydroxide related crimes. The money that was going to fund criminal enterprises was now being sent to private Ethyl hydroxide production companies and the US government in the form of taxes. Ending Ethyl hydroxide prohibition reduced crime and saved the Government money, this isn't debatable.

In the previous post I demonstrated how Ethyl hydroxide is more dangerous, both to the individual and to society then THC is. And if removing prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide resulted in a social position, then it stands to reason that removing Ethyl hydroxide on THC would do much the same.

So again it is illogical to support prohibition on THC without also supporting prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide. Anyone trying to argue this ends up sounding like a politician, or a southern baptist preacher.

In fact, ending the prohibition on Ethyl hydroxide was so good, I'm going to go home tonight and celebrate the event by consuming some myself.

Legal Opium resulted in a Nation with a population of 50% addicted to the drug by 1905. Social and Economic infrastructure remained stagnant. China was so weak it couldn't defend itself from much smaller Japan.
A Dictator came along (predictably) and killed all the drug addicts. Instead of the Mafia being a constant source of crime in a nation, the Criminals ended up running the nation. 38 million dead.

The mass murders committed by Mao Tse-tung surpassed any human in history. The Holocaust is estimated to have caused the murder of six million Jews and six million Christians. Estimates of Stalin’s victims hover around 20 million. Mao exterminated more than Hitler and Stalin combined. Professor Rummel, the world’s leading expert in such grisly studies, accepts the figure of around 38 million people killed by Mao. That is a number beyond our power to truly grasp.

This one puts the total at 65 million.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commen ... ass-Murder


I think my pile of bad consequences is bigger than yours.

[choff]

That court case that alleged the drug war is racist, any result yet, or is a procedural delay holding things up? Selective prosecution would be tough to prove.

[Teahive]

In my opinion the primary cause of the addiction in China was the widespread AVAILABILITY of the addicting substance.

Availability clearly plays a role (as obviously with zero availability there would be no drug use), but it also clearly isn't the only relevant factor. Not to mention that opium prohibition in China was unable to prevent widespread addiction, so when China was forced to lift prohibition they already had an addiction problem.

Also, I'm not arguing for ubiquity. But we already have frameworks to deal with addictive drugs, both recreational and medical, without outright banning them. The latter simply costs a lot of money and makes drug dealing with dubious methods a lot more attractive.

[Diogenes]

In my opinion the primary cause of the addiction in China was the widespread AVAILABILITY of the addicting substance.

Availability clearly plays a role (as obviously with zero availability there would be no drug use), but it also clearly isn't the only relevant factor. Not to mention that opium prohibition in China was unable to prevent widespread addiction, so when China was forced to lift prohibition they already had an addiction problem.

Also, I'm not arguing for ubiquity. But we already have frameworks to deal with addictive drugs, both recreational and medical, without outright banning them. The latter simply costs a lot of money and makes drug dealing with dubious methods a lot more attractive.

The proposal on the table is to make ALL DRUGS legal. It is my opinion that certain drugs will spread from person to person like an infection.

[Teahive]

I don't know exactly which proposal you're referring to, but in my understanding "legal" doesn't mean unrestricted. Cannabis could probably be sold under similar rules as alcohol, while many other drugs could be treated as prescription drugs, as they have medical uses.

[choff]

Apparently the Dutch intend to limit the THC content of cannibas in coffee shops to 15% or they have the license yanked. They say over 15% makes it a hard drug.

[palladin9479]

Apparently the Dutch intend to limit the THC content of cannibas in coffee shops to 15% or they have the license yanked. They say over 15% makes it a hard drug.

Well at least their taking steps to standardize and categorize it.

It should be treated like Alcohol, have to be over a certain age to buy and can only be manufactured and distributed at licensed facilities.

As for D, he responded with five posts, to himself. So yeah, didn't even bother reading.

[Diogenes]

Apparently the Dutch intend to limit the THC content of cannibas in coffee shops to 15% or they have the license yanked. They say over 15% makes it a hard drug.

Well at least their taking steps to standardize and categorize it.

It should be treated like Alcohol, have to be over a certain age to buy and can only be manufactured and distributed at licensed facilities.

As for D, he responded with five posts, to himself. So yeah, didn't even bother reading.

God forbid that the slightest touch of sanity should ever cross your doorstep.

The topic (which you can't seem to grasp) is the total legalization of all drugs in a completely unregulated fashion. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THC.

MSimon believes that it is every individual's right to consume whatever drugs in whatever quantities that an individual so chooses. If you are going to attempt to pass yourself off as clever, the first thing you should do is LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

[Diogenes]

I don't know exactly which proposal you're referring to, but in my understanding "legal" doesn't mean unrestricted. Cannabis could probably be sold under similar rules as alcohol, while many other drugs could be treated as prescription drugs, as they have medical uses.

You have come into this discussion recently. ALL of these discussions on drugs are initiated by MSimon, or as a response to him. It is his life's crusade to get the uninhibited use of drugs declared a "human right."

In all these discussions, his use of the term "legal" MEANS unrestricted. (If it's a right, how can you restrict it?)

We are talking artillery pieces, (Heroine, Unrestricted) you guys are talking slingshots and pea-shooters.(Cannabis, regulated.)

[Teahive]

Well, if you're having a private discussion with MSimon about unrestricted hard drugs, why put it in a public forum?

I'm just arguing exactly what I wrote, with no implied hidden context coming from other threads.

[palladin9479]

Apparently the Dutch intend to limit the THC content of cannibas in coffee shops to 15% or they have the license yanked. They say over 15% makes it a hard drug.

Well at least their taking steps to standardize and categorize it.

It should be treated like Alcohol, have to be over a certain age to buy and can only be manufactured and distributed at licensed facilities.

As for D, he responded with five posts, to himself. So yeah, didn't even bother reading.

God forbid that the slightest touch of sanity should ever cross your doorstep.

The topic (which you can't seem to grasp) is the total legalization of all drugs in a completely unregulated fashion. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THC.

MSimon believes that it is every individual's right to consume whatever drugs in whatever quantities that an individual so chooses. If you are going to attempt to pass yourself off as clever, the first thing you should do is LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

There is currently no distinction between hard or soft drugs. THC is a schedule 1 substance, that places it in the exact same category legally as Heroine, Meth and Cocaine. THC is also the largest contributor to costs, both financially and socially, in the ongoing prohibition of "drugs". The current prohibition has become a political tool nothing else. There are no standards nor concrete definitions for the various categories used, its just an amorphous description of "drugs are bad". When you deal in such absolutes inevitably you end up being wrong.

So instead of "all drugs" you should instead categorize and define class's of drugs based on their actual impacts, not a religious feeling of "if it feels good it must be bad". Once you've done this, then and only then will I take anything your saying seriously.

And BTW, THC is used as the counter to the "drugs are all bad!!" because it is the perfect example of a failure in the "war on drugs". It's a nontoxic substance with mild psycho active properties and no known negative side effects, yet it was attacked and categorized next to deadly narcotics. It show cases where your all your arguments fall apart, namely in that you can't trust a bureaucracy in things like prohibition.