2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

Do people have a right to practice racial discrimination?

Yes, of course they do, just as they have the right to shout racial epithets at races they don't like, or to refuse to rent to people whose zodiac sign is Libra. They shouldn't do those things, but like many things they shouldn't do, they do have the right to, and we do NOT have the right to forcibly stop them.

Rand Paul got in some hot water with the identity politics crowd over this notion, but he was absolutely correct. You cannot create thoughtcrimes in a free society, no matter how well justified they may seem. Bad ideas must die in a free marketplace, not beneath a gov't jackboot.

Well, your philosophy is consistent at least.

[WizWom]

I hope you're willing to defend that notion, because I want to ask you if mental patients should be allowed to do what they want?
I also want to know if you are okay with a parent spending his time getting high on dope instead of working to feed his child?
If your answer to both questions is "Yes", then congratulations, your philosophy is consistent, but your sanity is suspect.
How about a real answer, not a doge or attempted finesse?

Mental patients, as long as they don't harm other SHOULD get to do whatever they like - even if they harm themselves. Society makes a grave error trying to keep people from harming themselves.

I have a friend who stopped an autistic kid from running out into a major street. The kid was 13 years old, wearing a filthy diaper that was half hanging off his ass, with fecal material running down his leg. He had escaped from his mothers house because her brother was supposed to be watching him, but the brother wanted some weed, so he took off and left the kid in the house by himself.

A mental incompetent is a lot different than a mentally ill person. That's why they are treated differently in hospitals.
Mentally incompetent people, by definition, are not competent to make their own decisions.

The parent who neglects their children should have the children taken away - not as a punishment for doing drugs, but for the neglect.

And why should the taxpayers pay to support other people's children, instead of kicking aforementioned dopers A$$? The dopers are harming ME! Joe Taxpayer!

The drug user will use drugs whether they are legal or illegal: this is a proven fact. In fact, the facts support the idea that prohibition increases use, especially among the groups who have the least concepts of what they do.

The choice is not "no societal cost" vs "us taking care of their kids" - the choice is "us taking care of their kids" vs "us paying for their room and board and guards in jail AND taking care of their kids."

It is not the society's problem to judge WHY the neglect occurred, but to ameliorate the effects on the children, who deserve some chance to grow into useful people. But if the drug user can take care of their child - as in feed, clothe, provide shelter and instruction - then there is no reason to remove the child from the home, even if the parent spends a couple hours a night completely wacked out on heroin.

Ha ha ha ha ha.... I'm sorry, that's the only thing I can think of which fits as a response. How many heroine addicts do you know who act responsibly?

When I was looking at the literature, the investigators found the vast majority of heroin users were functioning nicely. Stewardesses, pilots, stock brokers, engineers... they'd have a reasonable hit in the morning, do their job, and go home or go out as they chose at night. It is quite easy to manage your life when hooked on Heroin, Morphine, or Opium.

It is not insane.. it is rational and proper. A person has the right to their own person, even to destruction.

And I have the right to keep them the h3ll away from me, because they constitute a threat that I do not wish to put up with. Apparently society agrees, hence laws banning these substances.

Society, as a whole, is very poorly informed on almost everything. Especially issues filled with Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and Propaganda like the Drug Issue.

I have a dear friend who told me about his experience with LSD. He and a friend were sitting in his room eating potato chips when they decided to try it. All of a sudden, my friend believed he was eating glass, and became terrified he was cutting his mouth open. His friend screamed, jumped up, and then dived out the window. He later said a robot firing darts from it's mouth came out of the closet.

He said it was a bad trip, and he didn't want to try it again. Imagine if the guy who dove out the window had a knife, or a car, or a gun.

Irresponsible drug use, just like irresponsible alcohol use, would have penalties. Anyone who doesn't lock up their dangerous things prior to using LSD, and/or doesn't have a trip coach, is a fool. Fools will be a danger to themselves even without drugs.

And in any case, my preferred legalization for more volatile substances is a clinic setting: you're welcome to go to the clinic, sign away your rights to societal financed care, and try any drug you like in the comfort of the clinic. Trained staff would deal with psychotic breaks such as you describe.

[KitemanSA]

A person may have a right to do unto themselves, but children do NOT have that right.

Could you clarify this statement for me? Am I to understand that you believe that if an adult provides drugs to a 10 year old who uses same, that 10 year old should be put in jail?

If you think they should be jailed, then you have stated your opinion correctly.

If on the other hand you do NOT think the child should be jailed, but the adult should, then I think you have misstated it. In this case you should state that the child has the right to use drugs, just like an adult. The issue is who if anyone has the right to provide such drugs TO the child. And my opinion is that no-one but a parent/guardian has the right to provide drugs to said child. And even then, if adverse effects are detected, it could be argued in court that the parent/guardian is conducting chemical assault on the child and have their control removed.

[KitemanSA]

Apparently you dismiss my argument that a parent has an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child.

If instead, you think a parent DOES have an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child, then how do you square that notion with the parent having the right to use crack or kill themselves?

To the degree that the parent is delinquent in a obligation to a child, i.e., harming said child, procecute them for that. But it doesn't matter what the CAUSE of that delinquency is, be it crack, marijuana, of the Jerry Springer Show. The crime is the failure to meet the obligation. Prosecute the CRIME! The vice should NEVER be an excuse.

[KitemanSA]

I have actually been pondering the notion I proposed regarding alcohol, (a check mark on your drivers license indicating you have not been prohibited from consuming it due to previous abuse.) concerning drugs.

It is obvious that some people cannot handle either Alcohol OR drugs, but it is also obvious that some people have no trouble avoiding alcohol abuse or addiction. Extrapolating, it is quite likely that some people will also have no trouble avoiding drug abuse or addiction, so therefore, perhaps it is possible to allow legal drug usage by some, without the concurrent damage that the current system invokes.

If these assumptions are plausible, the next component would be figuring out how and where to draw the lines, and deciding if the benefits are worth the cost.

Obviously, regulated drug use would have to exclude children or people with mental impairments. Beyond that, figuring out who can handle it and who cannot is more difficult. The down side is it would require more bureaucrats but perhaps not so many as to make the idea completely unworkable. (How many people does it take to maintain a database on chemical/alcohol abusers? They do it now. )

Just thinking out loud.

OMG!! Welcome to the thoughtful side!!!

[KitemanSA]

Legal, not unregulated illegal. Get it?

Not really. It is just a bunch of sophistry.

"Legal" promotes responsible behavior in the provision of the drugs, "unregulated illegal" engenders IRresponsible behavior. Surely even you can get it now!

If that be the case, then how is the suggesting your desire to extend drug tolerance to the border and beyond anything like X times infinity?
Again, it seems pretty axiomatic to me.

IF the drugs had been legal in the first place, the Swiss wouldn't have had the problems they did. But, they weren't legal, just unregulated. That was an honorable, but stupid, experiment.

I agree about the stupid part. A lot of conservative critics predicted that it would be a fiasco. I remember Rush Limbaugh making fun of it when the idea was first proposed, and trumpeting what a failure it was when they finally shut it down. The idea was contrary to what most people regard as common sense.

Hey, again a slight shred of agreement! Of course we have completely different reasons for thinking it stupid, but I'll take what I can get. The reason it was stupid, despite what Rush (oddly appropriate name don't you think (Oxyconton) would have you believe, was that it was based on unregulated illegality, rather than legality; irresonsibility rather than responsibility.

I am becoming less interested in your opinion regarding this topic by the day.

This is a common occurrence when people can't accept that they are wrong. Too much invested to change their mind, too much dissonance to listen further.

It is also a common occurrence when people of sufficient aptitude realize that a conversation is pointlessly going in circles punctuated with snide remarks and ad hominem attacks. It is like Godwin's law without the Nazis. (Although I think they may have been invoked too.) Add to that, the fact that this conversation has been ongoing between myself and MSimon for a very long time, and this just represents the nth iteration of it.

Perhaps. But which is it? You seem to have made a great breakthru above, so maybe you can remain able to think and learn.

The problem with this theory is that it is contradicted by my (and others) observations. I've seen people who could get as many drugs as they wanted. They simply go on an unending sequence of binges, and they do crazy things while they are high. Weird compulsive behavior, like disassembling a dozen bicycles right down to the ball bearings.

The reason there is a "war" is because of lots of similar experience with people using drugs exhibiting this sort of behavior.

Yet again a non-sequitur.
I make the point that the drug war causes the conditions that create addicts through pushing, and you reply that some people do stupid things on drugs. Well DUHH!!

You ASSERT the point. You have yet to MAKE the point. It is a "fact" not yet in evidence in the court of my opinion. It appears to me that the "war" is an abstract to the user, who is motivated by his own desire to get high, and like water, follows the easiest course to do it. It is not the war making addicts do stupid things, it is the drugs which are interfering with their neurological processes.

I know because when I was young and stupid someone pushed drugs on me. Indeed, every user I have ever talked to about it has given me effectively the same story. NONE went searching to get drugged up. Every one had someone "turn them on", i.e., push drugs on them. My personal experience is 100% pushed, 0% did it on their own.

You seem to be saying you know a bunch of druggies, or ex-druggies. As them for yourself.

LISTEN. Get it thru your head that I accept that drugs, when used with irresponsible abandon, are bad for the users. But those users are most often CREATED due to the drug war. Not ALWAYS, but by far the greatest percentage.

Again, such an allegation has not been established to the degree that it has any credibility with me. As i've mentioned, i've seen people who could get all the drugs they wanted. They didn't suddenly start behaving sensibly, they went on ever worsening drug binges. They shared their stuff with others, who accompanied them on their binges.

Ah, at last a few details. First, no one said that addicts would somehow start acting sensibly. It is probably the case they weren't to sensible BEFORE they became addicts. But the question remains, when they "shared" their drugs, did they share with existing druggies or did they go out an push on non-users? If it is the second, my personal experience would suggest that they had a slightly longer view and wanted to set up a clientele for when times got worse.

MSimon mentioned tobacco earlier, if your theory is correct, that the drug war causes all the problems, why is it that we have so many problems with tobacco, and why is it's use so widespread when there was an absence of an equivalent war? We SEE what happened with tobacco. How can you allege that something completely different will happen with Crack? I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Which problems are you talking about? Are there drive by shootings to corner the cigi-butt market? Are there folks in school yards pushing over-priced chaw on kids? Or are you simply saying that tobacco is bad for people, that it makes them sick? If the former, all I can say is "get real, dude!" If the latter, then maybe that should make you think that what we should do with other such things is make them legal and very restricted to kids, and perhaps even restrictions on advertising on the public airwaves (not sure that would be a good idea, but I'd listen to an argument).

Some people are self destructive. That is NOT a good reason to make the society self destructive too.

Good point. At one time in our nation's history, a huge percentage of people were cigarette smokers. The funny thing was, the more it became common place, the more self destructive people there were. (though they didn't know it at the time. ) One might suggest a causal relation from this.

Yup, but they didn't make them illegal and the incidence of smoking has been going down due to peer pressure for quite a while, no? One might detect a pattern there

Further more, if drug users engage in criminal activity (please remember that I distinguish between criminal and felonious) prosecute them for that crime. Criminal activity is not acceptable no matter what the source.

You mean the criminal behavior other than using drugs which is regarded as criminal behavior, because society has deemed it a crime. If we are fudging the definition of criminal behavior for drug usage, whose to say where the boundary should be fudged for other crimes? Homosexuality used to be a crime. We fudged that. Adultery used to be a crime. We fudged that. There are those even now who try to reduce the age requirement for consent.

I gave you my definition of crime in a prior post. It is a crime when you involve another in an action involuntarily because "People have the right to voluntary action". Period. Nothing else is a crime. Making it a FELONY does not make it a CRIME (though lawyers would have you believe so as it makes them the arbiters of right and wrong so they can threaten you with legal trouble). Indeed, making it a felony is the source of all these societal ills we've been discussing. Because, "You can't do GOOD, by doing WRONG".

What I am saying is, if there is no inherent objective framework for determining when something is a crime and to what degree, then "crime" becomes nothing but the subjective opinion of the uniformed masses. I prefer philosophical boundaries where nature draws them.

"Something is a crime when it involves another in an action involuntarily." Can't be more objective than that!

For some reason, many who champion the drug war don't seem to think that folks who commit crimes while under the influence are culpable. Silly, but there it is.

Not sure where you got that notion. Driving under the influence is a crime, whether it be alcohol or narcotics. I don't know of anyone who leans toward leniency on the basis of drug usage.

Driving under the influence is a felony. Injuring someone while doing it is a crime. See the difference?

Yeah, it's like trying to separate Slavery from the civil war.

It wasn't the slavery that was wrong, it was the war. Slavery had nothing to do with the war. Hmmm....

Not even you can be that stupid, so I now know you are willfully miss-stating me.

Not misstating you, providing an example of similar thinking in a different context.

Absurd. Slavery is the violation of another's right to voluntary action in the extreme. Slavery is a CRIME, but was for many years not illegal. It's lack of illegality did NOT make it right. In the complete opposite, drug usage is a violation of NO-ONE except one-self. Drug use is NOT a crime, but for many years it HAS been illegal. That does NOT make it wrong. Night and day. Totally opposite. Sorry, maybe I was wrong. Maybe you CAN be that stupid?

Thank you for a semi interesting discussion. Please quit acting like such an idiot, it makes the rest of your views look questionable in other's eyes.

Yeah, that's a strong argument for making me behave. Most of my life has been spent bucking the trend, and refusing to bow to peer pressure.

Good on ya. Do you think the world is flat too?

The ill effects to the user are likewise ill effects to society, for society is made up of individuals, of which the user is one.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that we are owned by society. I don't.

Obviously. You want the benefits of having a society, but you don't feel the same obligation to maintain it. You don't have to be "owned" to feel obligated. You can root against the home team if you want to.

Just because I let you know that you are wrong in you support of the drug war doesn't mean that I don't feel some obligation to maintain society. I do indeed live my life in such a way that promotes cooperative interaction between people. Indeed, it is my belief that even IF you feel such an obligation, you are screwing up your exercise of it. Even I have a limit to my exercise of politeness.

Rights and responsibilities are reciprocal in society. Some people demand all of the one, but reject all of the other.

People's responsibility in society is to respect the rights of others. The drug war is a major violation of those rights. .

I disagree completely. It is an effort to prevent the irresponsible from spreading misery and pain all over their friends, associates, and neighbors because they get an endorphin release when they tamper with their biology.

I know you do. You have made that abundantly clear. But that just goes to show that you have a faulty understanding of what is right. Your mantra, grasshopper is "People have the right to voluntary Action. Therefore it is wrong to involve someone in an action involuntarily... ohmmm". Say that to yourself each night for 15 minutes before you sleep. When you understand it, let me know and I will provide your next mantra!

It is no more a right than firing a gun up in the air without regard to where the bullets are coming down. You can say "I didn't mean to do that!" all you want, but the behavior engenders bad results by it's nature.

Yup, but if you are out in the middle of the Pacific and you can see that there is noone anywhere around, is firing your gun straight up a CRIMINAL act? It may be stupid, but not criminal. Doing it in a city becomes criminal to the degree it involves others involuntarily (e.g., comes down thru their roof without permission).

It, by definition, makes people irresponsible. That irresponsibility is what causes the ill effects on society. Good bye. Have a nice herd-cuddle. Mooo, to you.

Interesting goodbye you have on your planet.

Nope, I was being polite and speaking in a manner consistent with YOUR world. You know, government cattle world. Though maybe you are from government sheep world instead. In which case, sorry for the foreign language. Baa instead!

[KitemanSA]

If someone ruins his life by any overt action, it is the same. Suicide and cutting off body parts fit into that category.

It's not the same. This is just semantics unless we have a clearly defined premise for this little branch in the overall debate.

How is it not the same? If a person owns their body, why can they not chop off body parts or kill it? I can certainly chop off parts of anything I own.

Can you two explain what position each is taking in this squabble? Seems that one is saying that ruining ones life and suicide and self mutilation are in the same category and the other is saying no its not. What category?

[KitemanSA]

By contrast, a handgun's intended purpose is to cause harm to other people.

I have a slight quibble with this part of an otherwise superb statement. My quibble is that a hand guns intended purpose is to be ABLE to cause harm to others. CONTROLABLE ability. Otherwise, why have a trigger and a safety? Hope you don't feel too put out with my comment!

[KitemanSA]

I have a friend who stopped an autistic kid from running out into a major street. The kid was 13 years old, wearing a filthy diaper that was half hanging off his ass, with fecal material running down his leg. He had escaped from his mothers house because her brother was supposed to be watching him, but the brother wanted some weed, so he took off and left the kid in the house by himself.

What I keep seeing is one side speaking about adult vices and the other saying "but the children..."

Can we just agree that child abuse, in all its forms, for whatever cause, is wrong and get on with a valid discussion about adult vices?

[KitemanSA]

The parent who neglects their children should have the children taken away - not as a punishment for doing drugs, but for the neglect.

And why should the taxpayers pay to support other people's children, instead of kicking aforementioned dopers A$$? The dopers are harming ME! Joe Taxpayer!

So instead you want to send the adult to jail for NO reaon other than he MIGHT cause harm, and you are willing to spend the huge $ to keep them emprisoned; AND to pay the cost of child care to boot, but you don't want to risk to possiblity of having to find a child a new home because is would cost you a few dollars?

Jeez, man, make up you mind already!

[KitemanSA]

It is not the society's problem to judge WHY the neglect occurred, but to ameliorate the effects on the children, who deserve some chance to grow into useful people. But if the drug user can take care of their child - as in feed, clothe, provide shelter and instruction - then there is no reason to remove the child from the home, even if the parent spends a couple hours a night completely wacked out on heroin.

Ha ha ha ha ha.... I'm sorry, that's the only thing I can think of which fits as a response. How many heroine addicts do you know who act responsibly?

In this society, who would know? For all you know there are many of them all around you. But they are acting responsibly. Why then should they be tossed into prison?

If they act IRRESPONSIBLE, i.e., if they violate others rights, THEN prosecute them, for that act, not for the drugs.

[Betruger]

It's not the same. This is just semantics unless we have a clearly defined premise for this little branch in the overall debate.

How is it not the same? If a person owns their body, why can they not chop off body parts or kill it? I can certainly chop off parts of anything I own.

Can you two explain what position each is taking in this squabble? Seems that one is saying that ruining ones life and suicide and self mutilation are in the same category and the other is saying no its not. What category?

Not going to- Diogenes' argument is already flawed at another point. Chasing the rest of the other "squabbles" isn't worthwhile (and also his way of thinking doesn't match mine at all, so that'd be yet another detour to travel before getting down to the actual meat of the debate- and you can see up-thread what kind of tangential quote-stacked reading that makes for -- no thanks). I'm against any prohibition in principle but the real world isn't at that level of platonic perfection (so merely asking whether someone is for/against prohibition in principle misses the point). So compromises must be made and the goal posts moved toward that ideal state of things any (every) time such a move becomes feasible.

Drugs being "inconvenient" doesn't fly as an excuse for more govt, and everything that implies (e.g. war on drugs). Guns are not only more dangerous (e.g. nutball spree killers) but are explicitly made to cause exactly the thing Diogenes argues that drugs should be banned for. On top of that drugs not only aren't made to cause that thing (drugs aren't wanted for suicide/grief/etc but mind alteration), but aren't weaponized so to speak - the user harms himself, not others. Then you have all the downstream points, e.g. legal market would encourage quality drugs instead of dangerous junk formulas.

Collateral damage (grief, etc) on relatives of the drug user gone wild also aren't compelling reasons for prohibition. That's no different from any other scenario where one guy causes grief (and here I'd go on tangent that everyone's emotions, incl grief, are their own responsibility, but that's another story) to his relatives etc, as others have reiterated.

And frankly - if you're so stupid as to purposefully (because via a choice that predictably leads to it) ruin your life with these drugs as people already do with those drugs already legal today, or any other behavior of that type (e.g. gambling), you get what you deserve. Good riddance.
If it's a disorder at the biological level, beyond your conscious authority, get help.

Which brings me to the other point I was making (that "ambiguous" litany of motivations).. And TallDave sounds like he thinks the same:

Bad ideas must die in a free marketplace, not beneath a gov't jackboot.

[Diogenes]

By not including my points which you are addressing, you have made it difficult for me to figure out to what exactly I am responding. I'll just have to skip some points.

1)
Thought you meant something else.

?

1)
2) Thought you were getting at the parent being responsible for kid usage while kid was in arbitrary age that's considered unable to make its own decisions..

No, I meant how can the parent take care of the child properly if the parent is an addict? But your response brings up an interesting point.

If using drugs is as you believe, a question of personal choice, why isn't it a personal choice for kids? Don't they have rights too? One might think that this comment from you is a tacit acknowledgment that drugs must be bad because they are not suitable for children to use.

What if the parent GIVES the child permission to use drugs? Even supplies them to the child?

1)
3) Forget whether it's widely or narrowly believed. What matters is whether it makes sense or not, not demographic approval as you said. The parent is adult and responsible for what it does. Kill or otherwise abuse the child and it must pay.

I'd like to focus on this question of whether or not the child has a right to use drugs, and whether the parent has a right to allow the child to use drugs. And while we're at it, Who the H3ll decides what age is appropriate for a child to make his own decisions and why isn't that unfair to more mature children?

1)
4) I don't care what the law says, only what makes sense to me, as far as you and I arguing things. Gattaca might've been a bleak vision, but I don't know if it's accurate. In it you have a clear demonstration that willpower can overcome supposed genetic predispositions.

From the reading I have done, Genetic predispositions are pretty strong, but they can be modified to some extent depending on how much effort is applied. I will point out that in the movie, the man had to have his legs broken and stretched because his genes didn't encode for the correct height of the man he was attempting to emulate.

1)
So the genetic predisposition estimates in that world of Gattaca are wrong - the legislators/specialists consulting on the legislators screwed up and ended up with a dramatically unfair system.

It' is a movie which tells us a great deal about the way people operate in the real world. Despite what everyone thinks, people DO give more consideration to people with "Superior" characteristics. Actors, Actresses, Singers, etc. are examples of people having talents that most people do not have, and as a result, they are people with special rights and privileges, which are accorded to them by the public at large.

What I'm saying is that life is unfair, especially if you don't have the "Magic" genes. (seems like that idea applies to drugs too.)

1)
Laws aren't supposed to be unfair, yet forbidding someone to drive @ some B/A ratio that's not a problem for him is the status quo; a technically unfair status quo. Which I reckon is only due to the technical unfeasibility to accurately regulate everything involved for the true goal of having people on the road only impaired to a specific (quantified) degree, on a case by case basis at a national level (hundreds of millions of people). The real thing that's attempted to be regulated, the real target, is that degree of impairment. Not the brand of beer or B/A ratio.
We use this convention of B/A as an interim solution, and that's fine with me assuming that's what's most feasible. In short, no, I don't think that less comprehensive laws, where more comprehensive laws would be possible, are reasonable.
That said: The devil is in the details and the above is just for argument's sake. My POV grosso modo.

Now you are beginning to comprehend the nature of the problem. The law is of necessity, a blunt tool. It is extremely difficult to tailor it precisely to the offensive conduct without catching a whole lot of people who are not causing a problem. To use a geometry analogy, they define the laws as a square, because it's easy to define, when in fact the shape they are trying to cover may be a Maltese cross. The square shape will cover it adequately, but it will also cover areas that don't need to be covered. They do this because it is too difficult to define and implement, a law in the exact shape of a Maltese cross.

Laws are simplified because it isn't feasible to make them completely accurate. The legislators usually err on the side of caution.

With drugs, there are a lot of people who can use them safely and without serious detrimental effects to their lives (Like the in between areas of the Maltese Cross arms) But there are others which would be very badly hurt and possibly killed from such usage.

IF the people who are injured represent some significant threshold quantity that is beyond what the legislatures regard as tolerable, then they err on the side of caution and pass a law prohibiting it.

What is the threshold percentage of the population that must adversely be affected before we conclude that something is bad, and must be prohibited? Would we allow a kill rate of a vaccine as high as 1% ?

Not answering that right now, haven't thought about it and don't have time to.

It's germane.

5) Again mistaking my POV. I don't think it's bad that some people occasionally need killing, and in fact that's not how I see it either. My understanding of human nature doesn't agree with your drug prohibition policy. What you said doesn't refute what I said in previous post WRT guns/drugs equivalence as far as preventive prohibition goes.

As I don't exactly know which comment you are replying to, I'm not sure how to respond. I can say one thing though, your assertion that you were "On the fence" seems pretty much discredited. You certainly don't sound like someone who is "On the fence", you sound like someone who has made up their mind a long time ago.

7) That doesn't make sense and doesn't sound like you understood what I said. I'm saying rockets and drugs are apples and oranges. Will answer later.

My point is this? Is interdiction EVER the right course of action, or is it inherently flawed, as others seem to allege?

8. It's not ambiguous, it's my motivations. I thought the link between them and letting people take responsibility for their own actions (e.g. inform selves on drugs, choose to use or not use) was clear but I guess not.

I think the false notion that i'm attempting to bring to light, is that people can know before the fact, what will be the effects of their embarking on a road of drug use. To reuse Phillip K. Dick's dedication:

Here is the list, to whom I dedicate my love:

To Gaylene deceased

To Ray deceased

To Francy permanent psychosis

To Kathy permanent brain damage

To Jim deceased

To Val massive permanent brain damage

To Nancy permanent psychosis

To Joanne permanent brain damage

To Maren deceased

To Nick deceased

To Terry deceased

To Dennis deceased

To Phil permanent pancreatic damage

To Sue permanent vascular damage

To Jerri permanent psychosis and vascular damage

... and so forth.

Do you think any of these people realized that when they embarked on a life of drug usage that it would lead to death, brain damage, and serious bodily disability?

To accept your premise, that people have a right to chose to use drugs, is to presume they understand the consequences of their decision. You are oversimplifying what is actually a complex issue. Could any of those people in the above list go back and stop themselves, don't you think they would? (Future self knows better than past self.)

The fact of the matter is drugs are a dangerous substance that promote their own addiction, and people simply cannot understand the danger they are in from using them. Banning them is no different from putting a railing on a dangerous mountain walkway where so many people have fallen before. Sure, some can negotiate it, but most cannot.

As I mentioned earlier, freedom must have limits to exist. Only a King is truly free, for he can do anything he wants to do, (within his own kingdom) while the rest of the people have to respect each other's rights.

I don't see how that precisely follows the exact points of contention here. Guns do more to infringe on others' rights, yet it sounds like you argue for less prohibitive regulation of them than of drugs.

How do guns infringe on others rights? Give me an example of this so I can understand what you are attempting to say.

The state is tasked with enforcing the boundaries when the citizens are too weak to do it themselves.

Boundaries between someone and himself from using drugs? What?

It is not just himself who suffers from his drug use. Recall the Uncle and Mother of the Bum in Denver. For years they supported him with a place to live, food, a car, and concern, yet they have both been bitterly disappointed. If he has a child, the child would suffer even more, for the father would not be able to provide the responsibility which the child would need to survive, and therefore it would have to come from elsewhere. These people are also victims of the pot head's usage.

Is that really too complicated for you to see? The simplistic view breaks down when it's scrutinized sufficiently.

[Diogenes]

The state is tasked with enforcing the boundaries when the citizens are too weak to do it themselves.

Boundaries between someone and himself from using drugs? What?

I know, right? I mean, it's one thing if someone is telling you cocaine is harmless (can you imagine the warnings all over the packaging in a regulated free market?). But if you know the danger and you want to do it anyway, I really don't need my hard-earned tax dollars being spent to try to stop you -- and I don't have that right anyway, and trying doesn't work.

We didn't end Prohibition because everyone suddenly realized alcohol didn't destroy people and families. It does, but a free society means letting other people do things you think they shouldn't.

Out of context again. Drug user's usage impacts people other than the user. I know of three children who no longer have a mothers because they drugged themselves to death. (two were toddlers)

Tell me that a child's right to be loved and cared for by it's mother is not as important as the mother's right to get high.

[Diogenes]

Mental patients, as long as they don't harm other SHOULD get to do whatever they like - even if they harm themselves. Society makes a grave error trying to keep people from harming themselves.

I have a friend who stopped an autistic kid from running out into a major street. The kid was 13 years old, wearing a filthy diaper that was half hanging off his ass, with fecal material running down his leg. He had escaped from his mothers house because her brother was supposed to be watching him, but the brother wanted some weed, so he took off and left the kid in the house by himself.

A mental incompetent is a lot different than a mentally ill person. That's why they are treated differently in hospitals.
Mentally incompetent people, by definition, are not competent to make their own decisions.

And now you are going to attempt to split hairs? Would it be more appropriate (as an example) if I used a mental patient who thought they could fly and wanted to jump off a building? (If you watch the series "House MD" that is exactly what happened.)


Now you are going to have to either assert that the mentally ill person has a right to jump off that roof, or you are going to have to walk back the statement where you claim they have a right to do what they want.

The parent who neglects their children should have the children taken away - not as a punishment for doing drugs, but for the neglect.

And why should the taxpayers pay to support other people's children, instead of kicking aforementioned dopers A$$? The dopers are harming ME! Joe Taxpayer!

The drug user will use drugs whether they are legal or illegal: this is a proven fact. In fact, the facts support the idea that prohibition increases use, especially among the groups who have the least concepts of what they do.

Criminals will commit crimes, whether they are legal or illegal:

Congratulations, you have just asserted that it is pointless to stop people from doing what they will do anyway. You have just made the argument that all crime prevention is pointless. Somehow I think you only want that idea to apply to drugs, and nothing else. Unfortunately, the concept applies just as well to all cases of crime.

The choice is not "no societal cost" vs "us taking care of their kids" - the choice is "us taking care of their kids" vs "us paying for their room and board and guards in jail AND taking care of their kids."

Ah, but you are leaving out a large segment of the equation. By your reasoning it would appear that incarceration is a lose/lose case for society. You fail to see that this argument applies for every case of incarceration, not just drug use incarceration. You are actually making the argument that incarceration itself is pointless and doesn't work.

You are overlooking the fact that incarceration does indeed have a positive benefit to society: the serving of negative examples to potential lawbreakers in an effort to deter them from committing a crime.

A refusal to see this leads to two possible conclusions. Ignorance or Deception. You either don't understand the beneficial purpose which incarceration serves, or you are intentionally omitting it.


It is my thinking, that it is not very worthwhile to argue with someone who is that degree of ignorant, or that degree of misleading. Perhaps you have a third explanation?

It is not the society's problem to judge WHY the neglect occurred, but to ameliorate the effects on the children, who deserve some chance to grow into useful people.

Upon encountering a shot man, it is not society's problem to judge WHY the man had been shot, but to ameliorate the effects on him, because he deserves some chance to continue on with his life.

Sorry, no sale. The reasons why someone has been hurt are also important to society. How are we to prevent others from being hurt if we do not address the cause? How blind it would be to treat one shot man, and ignore the fact that someone out there shot him? You might end up with another shot man.

But if the drug user can take care of their child - as in feed, clothe, provide shelter and instruction - then there is no reason to remove the child from the home, even if the parent spends a couple hours a night completely wacked out on heroin.

Ha ha ha ha ha.... I'm sorry, that's the only thing I can think of which fits as a response. How many heroine addicts do you know who act responsibly?

When I was looking at the literature, the investigators found the vast majority of heroin users were functioning nicely. Stewardesses, pilots, stock brokers, engineers... they'd have a reasonable hit in the morning, do their job, and go home or go out as they chose at night. It is quite easy to manage your life when hooked on Heroin, Morphine, or Opium.

You know this by personal experience, or because you read it somewhere? This certainly doesn't jive with what I, and others, have seen. You should talk to a drug counselor. Perhaps they can set you straight.

It is not insane.. it is rational and proper. A person has the right to their own person, even to destruction.

And I have the right to keep them the h3ll away from me, because they constitute a threat that I do not wish to put up with. Apparently society agrees, hence laws banning these substances.

Society, as a whole, is very poorly informed on almost everything. Especially issues filled with Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and Propaganda like the Drug Issue.

I agree with you that it's filled with propaganda, but probably not in the way you are thinking.

I have a dear friend who told me about his experience with LSD. He and a friend were sitting in his room eating potato chips when they decided to try it. All of a sudden, my friend believed he was eating glass, and became terrified he was cutting his mouth open. His friend screamed, jumped up, and then dived out the window. He later said a robot firing darts from it's mouth came out of the closet.

He said it was a bad trip, and he didn't want to try it again. Imagine if the guy who dove out the window had a knife, or a car, or a gun.

Irresponsible drug use, just like irresponsible alcohol use, would have penalties. Anyone who doesn't lock up their dangerous things prior to using LSD, and/or doesn't have a trip coach, is a fool. Fools will be a danger to themselves even without drugs.

Fools will be a danger to others, especially under the influence of a severe mind bending substance. Are you suggesting that fools be deprived of the rights which you are advocating? If so, on what philosophical basis do you think that? It certainly seems inconsistent with your previous advocacy.

And in any case, my preferred legalization for more volatile substances is a clinic setting: you're welcome to go to the clinic, sign away your rights to societal financed care, and try any drug you like in the comfort of the clinic. Trained staff would deal with psychotic breaks such as you describe.

And such a clinic can be located right next to the Euthanasia center. They can move patients from the one clinic to the other without delay!

But that begs the question. Suppose the "Trained Staff" (presumably monitoring the health of the patient) decides that a patient is right on the edge of damaging his health? Suppose when he comes out of it, he demands a higher dosage? According to your philosophy, Who are the staff to tell him no?

We have reached another breakdown in your theory. Either the patient has the right to decide his own dosage, or he doesn't. If he does, the staff can't stop him, if he doesn't, then you are preventing him from exercising his right.

Choose.