Liberty Is Dangerous

[ScottL]

*sigh*

Diogenes, your China argument is so far off base I'm mystified that you're able to properly attire yourself daily. China's security was already compromised by both colonialism by a major power (UK) but also the occupation by Japan. Furthermore, the UK was actively pushing drugs on the population to extraordinary levels due to China's unwillingness to allow them to be fully exploited through trade agreements. I don't understand how you keep falling back to this argument when it's been shown time and again that it is competely invalid.

You actively ignore the history and then state what you wish to be true as fact, even when the true history and fact is put in your face. No matter how many times you post it as evidence of your argument, it will not become. You can say it a million times and it still won't be true.

[CKay]

I have one rule for determining if something ought to be outlawed nationally. Does it constitute such a danger that it could threaten our ability to defend ourselves as a nation?

Works both ways - consider the hugely negative effect that prohibition has both within a country (violence, low level crime, organised crime, corruption etc) and right up the supply chain to the source, where whole countries may even be destabilised.

Being an uneducated (/perfidious) Brit, I was shocked to learn recently that the violence in Mexico, that now seems to be approaching a slow burning civil war, is not down to drug gangs interested in the supply of cocaine but marijuana smuggling!

Having a failed state next door, with a long, porous land border, might plausibly fail that defence of the nation clause - and all as a direct result of prohibition.

[Diogenes]

Once you eliminate Alcohol and Tobacco death's from the drug numbers, you find there were more deaths related to helium, than the combined other drugs not listed. Interesting statistic and surprising.....helium? really? In 2010-11, drug deaths related to heroine, ecstasy, and amphetamines dropped, repeating the previous years' trend. The truth is, we focus on the extremes or use anecdotal evidence, not based on scientific research to back our wild-eyed claims.

Show me the reports with hard data and compare them to helium death, hanggliding, airplane crashes, etc. Give me a great statistical analysis of why we must continue prohibiting marijuana and why salvia is "ok." Numbers should speak louder than words in this forum.

How about I just acquaint you with exponential growth examples?










Chests of Opium brought into China




Surely you are smart enough to comprehend what is exponential growth? Make the sh*t legal, and you will get an exponential growth pattern of addiction just like China. It would occur here faster of course, because we have more money and there are a lot more drugs available.

[Diogenes]

Here is where I tap out (again). I learned a long time ago not to argue religion. Enjoy your drugs and try not to harm others. Also do not expect me to support any of my tax dollars going to social programs and medical that enable your usage or "recovery". Accept your personal risk, and do not expect to mitigate it at the expense of others.

Exact same thing can be said for assuming responsibility for anything that happens after willfully taking drugs. Why not outlaw any other such dangerous thing that also only starts with one bit of "free will" IE willfull tip of the first domino? Even if the domino sequence is much shorter - walking onto train's path, or (at opposite side of spectrum) working around asbestos, or paragliding... The obviously better, closer comparison is to alcohol. Or pot. Etc.

It all starts with willful choice to first use it, to initiate it. The fundamental sticking point here is the outlawing of free will.

But I also do not claim to have a viable alternative. I have, with others here debated and explored various options to the status-quo, but have not personally settled on a workable alternative framework.

It's a cultural problem, not a political one. Government is just not the right tool for the job.

There is a limit to what any government can tolerate regarding free will.

Let us take for example "conscientious objection." Obviously a nation of sufficient size can tolerate some of it. If the numbers of citizens who wished to be conscientious objectors rose to a point where the citizenry could not defend the government, that government would cease to exist, and it would be replaced by one that would FORCE people to fight whether they wanted to or not.

Usage of drugs at small levels is tolerable by a nation. Blanket usages by massive numbers of citizens will bring down a government that tolerates it.

The very nature of drugs will cause an exponentially increasing addiction. Any government that tolerates it will be eventually replaced by a government that will not tolerate it.

This is exactly what happened in China.

[ladajo]

I do drink. And I do so in a manner, and with folks who mutally accept the risk incurred. Which in my case is minimal and well managed.

So taking drugs is okay, so long as the user assesses and takes the appropriate measures to minimise risk?

You are so predictable. I should have typed that for you.

The answer lays not in yes or no, but in the difference between alcohol and "drugs". If I have a beer, I am not detectably inclined to desire another or not. If I do a drug, I am detectably inclined to desire another go. The difference being in the threshold.

So if I go out in the woods and point my gun in a random direction and shoot are my odds more or less that I will will hit someone else vice I do it in the city. Drug use has a higher risk factor in developing dependancy than alcohol. Drugs are also a more direct and effective means to subvert rational thinking and behaviours.

I garauntee you I can make you a cocaine addict. I do not garauntee you that I can make you a beer addict. I also garauntee you that my efforts to make you a cocaine addict will be much easier and faster than getting you hooked on alcohol.

Keep it in context. And yes, if you want to go in the corner a kill yourself, have at it. I have no issue with your personal free choice. However, that said, once you get on a mechanism that inherently reduces your ability to function fairly and clearly with others, that in turn drives the demand that your right to control your behaviour be removed.

[Diogenes]

Drugs are a difficult conundrum in that use promotes more desire and more use.

Hmm - it seems that you are conflating a whole host of different substances, with a range of very different effects, into this one entity 'drugs'.

Not all drugs promote desire for more use. Not all drug experiences are even enjoyable - for example, many who try LSD have no desire to repeat the experience (and LSD is certainly not physiologically or psychologically addictive). Not all drugs have the same effects on different people.
.

Whether ALL drugs do or not is irrelevant. What *IS* relevant is that if you legalize one hard drug, you have destroyed the argument for prohibiting any hard drug. You are in fact, urging the legalization of ALL drugs, and your foray into the different effects of various drugs is just a smoke screen to cover for the fact that while the lesser ones will be legal and relatively benign, the harsher ones will be let loose upon us as well.

Some drugs can indeed, as you have said, affect one's ability to make reasoned decisions and can also create a desire for further use, which may well develop, first into psychological, then physiological addiction. Alcohol being a prime example and by far the most damaging in terms of its gross effects (deaths, chronic illness, violence) in Western society.

One last time - do you drink?

The intent here to be demonstrating some sort of hypocrisy on his part. Yeah, I would ignore your feeble attempt too. You do however point out all the misery and death caused by a legal drug, but do not explain how this would be a good reason for us to have more of it with other drugs.

Why would we want MORE misery?

clearly say what you want/think.

I already have. I strongly believe that criminalising people for allegedly doing harm to themselves is morally wrong, inconsistent (why punish some risk behaviours - drug use - and not others - paragliding?) and counter-productive.

If I was in charge of UK drug policy, I'd decriminalise the issue and approach it as a medical problem. In other words, replicate what's been attempted, apparently with considerable success, in Portugal.

Portugal? That places is going bankrupt. I would suggest that if they can't manage money, they can't do anything more complicated correctly either. It took China a hundred years to be destroyed by drugs. You can talk to me about Portugal's success 20 years from now, (if they are still a country by that time.) but till it is proven long term, I'd rather not listen to it.

No guns, legal drugs, Muslims on the march, yeah, England is going to be quite interesting to watch these next couple of decades.

[CKay]

Oh dear, I see you're either a crank, or a really are a nasty piece of work Diogenes ('muslims on the march'?).

No point engaging with you any further - besides who could hope to take you on when you use graphs!

You're namesake would be rolling in his grave/barrel.

[Diogenes]

You Brits are responsible for utterly destroying that nation by your importation of drugs.


Here, educate yourself.

http://www.amoymagic.com/OpiumWar.htm

Hmm, not patronising at all, eh?

Sorry to disappoint, I'm fully aware of that pretty shameful part of British history (it is but one of many).

Oh, now that's not a proper way to characterize it! Shameful? According to your current argument, what Britain did to China was just an example of providing people free will and free choice!

Of course it begs the question. Why would you characterize what Britain did to China as being Shameful, yet wanting to do the same to us is somehow noble?

And sorry to further disappoint, but I'm not willing to accept any guilt by association ("you Brits") for something that happened over 200 years ago!

At least you have the good grace to acknowledge that importing drugs into China was an act deserving of guilt. Again, why would you not feel that way about selling drugs to anyone?

By the way, Britain only stopped selling drugs to China as a result of World War II. The Info is in that link I provided.

[Diogenes]

If you do not comprehend how it works, you should perhaps learn more before you opine.

Ouch.

(Yep, sorry to disappoint once more, but I well know the horse stealing quote. I would be tempted to engage you in a discussion of utilitarianism, Bentham and Mill, vs Kant's Categorical Imperative - but seeing as you seem quite incapable of anything approaching polite discussion, I think I'd rather not bother. )

Were the kitchen too hot for me, I would get out of it too. Your use of the word "utilitarianism" indicates you might have an inkling of what I am talking about, and can't come up with a good counter argument to it.

I find myself facing opponents in this predicament all the time.

[Diogenes]

*sigh*

Diogenes, your China argument is so far off base I'm mystified that you're able to properly attire yourself daily. China's security was already compromised by both colonialism by a major power (UK) but also the occupation by Japan. Furthermore, the UK was actively pushing drugs on the population to extraordinary levels due to China's unwillingness to allow them to be fully exploited through trade agreements. I don't understand how you keep falling back to this argument when it's been shown time and again that it is competely invalid.

If you are perplexed, I am as well. How you can keep claiming that it is the "pushing" which caused the addiction is totally befuddling to me. I keep pointing out, no amount of "pushing" is going to make people buy something they don't want. If they were pushing cucumbers, there would not have been a 50% addiction rate to cucumbers by 1900.

Addiction is a CHARACTERISTIC of drugs. You have NEVER offered a satisfactory (or even semi-sensible) explanation as to how China's addiction problem was not caused by drugs. You merely assert that it was caused by "pushing" and then wave your hands.

Even the fact that China started massive domestic production of Opium does not seem to get through to you.

The fact is, you don't like me pointing out this REAL WORLD EXPERIMENT because it completely undermines your theory.

You actively ignore the history and then state what you wish to be true as fact, even when the true history and fact is put in your face. No matter how many times you post it as evidence of your argument, it will not become. You can say it a million times and it still won't be true.

I am not ignoring any part of history. I'm ignoring your silly contention that "pushing" caused 50% of the population to become drug addicts.

It is the availability of the DRUG that causes addiction. You are ignoring reality.

[ScottL]

Surely you are smart enough to comprehend what is exponential growth? Make the sh*t legal, and you will get an exponential growth pattern of addiction just like China. It would occur here faster of course, because we have more money and there are a lot more drugs available.

Wow, someone as intelligent as you surely could understand that the exponential growth of chests of opium into China was directly related to a major power pushing the drugs in China. If the U.S. wants to push Heroin in Spain, you better darn well believe you'll get an exponential growth of usage in Spain. This has nothing to do with legalization of said drug and everything to do with pushing the drug. Keep posting your graphs out of context though.

Maybe I should post some graphs on the death toll of any country that has gotten in the U.S. way of "progress." Of course you'll post it was out of security or self-defense, but since you're willing to ignore context, I guess I could here too! Murderers....


Edit:

I am not ignoring any part of history. I'm ignoring your silly contention that "pushing" caused 50% of the population to become drug addicts.

It is the availability of the DRUG that causes addiction. You are ignoring reality.
_________________

Wow, you're way off base. This is not true in the slightest and actually proves MY point not yours. Yes there was a huge supply by a pusher, actively trying to get people addicted.

[CKay]

I would be tempted to engage you in a discussion of utilitarianism, Bentham and Mill, vs Kant's Categorical Imperative - but seeing as you seem quite incapable of anything approaching polite discussion, I think I'd rather not bother. )

Your use of the word "utilitarianism" indicates you might have an inkling of what I am talking about, and can't come up with a good counter argument to it.

There is a counter to the utilitarian argument - in fact, I mentioned it.

But I'm not willing to engage with you any further - every one of your posts absolutely drips poison, scorn and ad hominems - you seem like a nasty, bitter, truly horrible individual.

No thanks!

[Diogenes]

I have one rule for determining if something ought to be outlawed nationally. Does it constitute such a danger that it could threaten our ability to defend ourselves as a nation?

Works both ways - consider the hugely negative effect that prohibition has both within a country (violence, low level crime, organised crime, corruption etc) and right up the supply chain to the source, where whole countries may even be destabilised.

Yes, MSimon is fond of pointing out that we spend 25 billion dollars every year fighting the drug war. I constantly point out to him that opposition to a force requires energy. Drug addiction works like gravity. The minute you stop pushing back, your velocity increases like this:




Apparently none of you drug supporters on this PHYSICS forum seem to have a comprehension of an exponential function. The cost of keeping it under control is trivial compared to the cost of letting it get out of hand.

Being an uneducated (/perfidious) Brit, I was shocked to learn recently that the violence in Mexico, that now seems to be approaching a slow burning civil war, is not down to drug gangs interested in the supply of cocaine but marijuana smuggling!

Having a failed state next door, with a long, porous land border, might plausibly fail that defence of the nation clause - and all as a direct result of prohibition.

Yes, Prohibition is what is wrong with Mexico. Before THAT started, Mexico was peachy. No doubt, Prohibition is also screwing up North Korea, Iran, and every other nutburger country in the world.

The Government and People of Mexico need to make a decision. They either need to wipe out the drug cartels or be ruled by them. If they are unwilling to use violence, those who will shall win.

[ScottL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/emp ... wars1.html
[url]http://american_almanac.tripod.com/opium.htm[/url]

Please, Diogenes, read the history on the China Opium Wars. Opium usage has been found to be directly proportional to the British Royal Navy enforcing addiction. They were literally making several Chinese take the drug. Forcing them, not corhorsing them.

[ladajo]

So the fundamental point of disagreement is that in the given scenario, two outcomes are possible:

Room full of 10 people. One table, with large pile of Heroin, Food and water. Replenishment supplied on demand.

Diogenes: 50% will become addicted. Drug use normally supplants free will to not use.

ScottL: Someone may become addicted. Drug use does not normally supplant free will to not use.

Note, in this scenario, no-one is tied to a chair and forced to ingest the Heroin.

My personal take is that drug use does have a tendancy to supplant free will regarding further use and thus deserves measures of control.