Diogenes wrote: ll very fine and well, but since it's been explained to you that this discussion is about legalizing ALL DRUGS, including the worst possible one's you can imagine, do you still feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc. ?
First, no, I do not feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc.
But you are SUCH a liar. You imply above that legalization means unregulated sale.
Pardon me, but if one is arguing from the premise that it is a RIGHT, how then can you argue for restrictions on it? Isn't your theory that people have a RIGHT to put whatever they want into their body, or did I miss something? *I* read that to mean unregulated. If you want to regulate it, then you are engaging in your own form of "prohibition" and therefore are a hypocrite to argue against it.
KitemanSA wrote:
In fact, prohibition creates "unregulated" sales. Alcohol is legal... but not to kids. It is well regulated. Making things legal makes them BETTER regulated, not the other way. Prohibition creates the "unregulated" sale. What YOU propose results in "unregulated sales", not what we propose.
So you are arguing a question of degree, but not of direction? Restrictions are okay as long as YOU set the boundaries? You would tell an addict "You can have this much, but no more." You believe in prohibition, but with different boundaries.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: You can't consent when you don't understand to what you are consenting.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Hilarious. Also, nonsense.
People "consent" all the time without knowing the future. It is the essense of mature adult life. It is also the reason why children are often protected from situations where immaturity may lead them into unwise choices.
"Less than fully mature" people (youths) are not permitted to buy alcohol. Actually, this is not quite true. The seller is not permitted to sell to youths. Of course, youths have every right to buy it, but society holds the adult sellers to a higher standard and tells them that the ability of the youths to consent on this issue will not be recognized. They can buy, you can't sell. This is called "regulation". That is the way it should be for all drugs.
They would pay the costs of their own rehabilitation? When has any of them ever made so much money?
Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey Jr. Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, 1980s Wall Street, George W. Bush, and most suburban middle america etc.
I didn't bring up how it was paid for as I know ideologically we simply disagree. Regardless of payment method, the right to rehabilitation exists.
They are the exception, not the rule. They would account for perhaps 1% of all addicts. Also, there is no such thing as a "right" to rehabilitation, which I read between the lines as a "right" to other people's money.
And here I interpretted what I wrote as the right to take action toward rehabilitation. You have a right to take that action, whether it works or not.
Diogenes wrote: So you are arguing a question of degree, but not of direction? Restrictions are okay as long as YOU set the boundaries? You would tell an addict "You can have this much, but no more." You believe in prohibition, but with different boundaries.
I am arguing a matter of morality vice ethics. Sapient beings have the right to VOLUNTARY action. The converse, for people who can't think for themselves, is that it is WRONG to involve a person in an act involuntarily.
So yes there would be a prohibition against involving SOMEONE ELSE in the use of drugs that you should be free (as an adult) to choose to do to yourself. Dosing someone else involuntarily IS wrong and should be punished as any other crime. Dosing YOURSELF is your right. Dosing a child (i.e. a person too young to volunteer) is wrong too. What that age is may be different for different young people so will always be a matter of debate. This is where "default social contract" handles things better than "law".
So, a child does no wrong by dosing himself. You do wrong by dosing the child. Get the difference?
If the law, or better yet default social contract, were founded on this simple principle, civilization would have a better chance to flourish.
Diogenes wrote: ll very fine and well, but since it's been explained to you that this discussion is about legalizing ALL DRUGS, including the worst possible one's you can imagine, do you still feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc. ?
First, no, I do not feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc.
But you are SUCH a liar. You imply above that legalization means unregulated sale. In fact, prohibition creates "unregulated" sales. Alcohol is legal... but not to kids. It is well regulated. Making things legal makes them BETTER regulated, not the other way. Prohibition creates the "unregulated" sale. What YOU propose results in "unregulated sales", not what we propose.
I tend not to read most of what he writes, It would be better for other people's blood pressure not to either.
In this discussion he's attempting to create a false dichotomy. Either you agree on the wide open non-regulated sale of ALL "hard drugs" (an extremely vague and opaque term) or your agree on the completely and utter bad and prohibition of ALL "hard drugs" (same vague term).
No sane person would agree to the former, certain substances are dangerous to the general public period. We allow the sale of firearms but we don't allow the sale of hand grenades and rocket launchers to the general public for this exact reason.
Yet what we have now, the complete and arbitrary prohibition of "hard drugs" (that darn ephemeral term again) isn't working. Their still being produced, distributed and sold to a willing market without any regulation or safe guards. The FDA can't even ensure the quality of these illegal drugs is measured and monitored. Which is the actual kicker to this whole debate, prohibition actually makes things less safe as it prevents any form of regulation or quality control. Buying your cocaine from a licensed multinational conglomerate is safer then buying it from a multinational criminal organization (not saying there is much difference between the two).
There is a very real argument to take the lessor of two evils. The evil we know and can regulate / control vs the evil the don't know and have no control over.
Diogenes wrote: ll very fine and well, but since it's been explained to you that this discussion is about legalizing ALL DRUGS, including the worst possible one's you can imagine, do you still feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc. ?
First, no, I do not feel it is a reasonable idea to allow the unregulated sale of Heroin, Crack, Meth, PCP, LSD, etc.
But you are SUCH a liar. You imply above that legalization means unregulated sale. In fact, prohibition creates "unregulated" sales. Alcohol is legal... but not to kids. It is well regulated. Making things legal makes them BETTER regulated, not the other way. Prohibition creates the "unregulated" sale. What YOU propose results in "unregulated sales", not what we propose.
I tend not to read most of what he writes, It would be better for other people's blood pressure not to either.
Little children do not like being told "no."
palladin9479 wrote:
In this discussion he's attempting to create a false dichotomy. Either you agree on the wide open non-regulated sale of ALL "hard drugs" (an extremely vague and opaque term) or your agree on the completely and utter bad and prohibition of ALL "hard drugs" (same vague term).
You are occasionally loathsome. Why don't you shut up about what you think *I* am proposing, and ask MSimon what HE is proposing? If you discover that he is advocating the elimination of all prohibition and regulation, you can then walk back your assumption.
palladin9479 wrote:
No sane person would agree to the former, certain substances are dangerous to the general public period. We allow the sale of firearms but we don't allow the sale of hand grenades and rocket launchers to the general public for this exact reason.
One would think so, but unrestricted access is what is being proposed. Don't you think it would be better for you to LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT before you pop off?
palladin9479 wrote:
Yet what we have now, the complete and arbitrary prohibition of "hard drugs" (that darn ephemeral term again) isn't working. Their still being produced, distributed and sold to a willing market without any regulation or safe guards. The FDA can't even ensure the quality of these illegal drugs is measured and monitored. Which is the actual kicker to this whole debate, prohibition actually makes things less safe as it prevents any form of regulation or quality control. Buying your cocaine from a licensed multinational conglomerate is safer then buying it from a multinational criminal organization (not saying there is much difference between the two).
There is a very real argument to take the lessor of two evils. The evil we know and can regulate / control vs the evil the don't know and have no control over.
And what are you going to do when pharmaceutical companies use their vast resources to make instantly addicting drugs? Also, what legal company is going to accept the liability for bad trips and bad consequences? If you think the tobacco industry has been beaten up by the legal system, I'll bet you can't wait to see what the courts will do to the Cocaine industry!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: So you are arguing a question of degree, but not of direction? Restrictions are okay as long as YOU set the boundaries? You would tell an addict "You can have this much, but no more." You believe in prohibition, but with different boundaries.
I am arguing a matter of morality vice ethics. Sapient beings have the right to VOLUNTARY action. The converse, for people who can't think for themselves, is that it is WRONG to involve a person in an act involuntarily.
So yes there would be a prohibition against involving SOMEONE ELSE in the use of drugs that you should be free (as an adult) to choose to do to yourself. Dosing someone else involuntarily IS wrong and should be punished as any other crime. Dosing YOURSELF is your right. Dosing a child (i.e. a person too young to volunteer) is wrong too. What that age is may be different for different young people so will always be a matter of debate. This is where "default social contract" handles things better than "law".
So, a child does no wrong by dosing himself. You do wrong by dosing the child. Get the difference?
If the law, or better yet default social contract, were founded on this simple principle, civilization would have a better chance to flourish.
The False assumption in your argument is the belief that anyone can know what they are getting into. Our social history is littered with the bodies of celebrities which attained unfettered access to drugs.
Diogenes wrote: The False assumption in your argument is the belief that anyone can know what they are getting into. Our social history is littered with the bodies of celebrities which attained unfettered access to drugs.
The false assumption in your argument is that you assume I believe anyone can know everything. Consent doesn't require omniscience. It requires sufficient maturity to accept the unknowable, or the known risk.
To volunteer is to agree in the absence of force, fraud, or coersion to be involved in an action and to accept the conseqence.
Diogenes wrote: So you are arguing a question of degree, but not of direction? Restrictions are okay as long as YOU set the boundaries? You would tell an addict "You can have this much, but no more." You believe in prohibition, but with different boundaries.
I am arguing a matter of morality vice ethics. Sapient beings have the right to VOLUNTARY action. The converse, for people who can't think for themselves, is that it is WRONG to involve a person in an act involuntarily.
So yes there would be a prohibition against involving SOMEONE ELSE in the use of drugs that you should be free (as an adult) to choose to do to yourself. Dosing someone else involuntarily IS wrong and should be punished as any other crime. Dosing YOURSELF is your right. Dosing a child (i.e. a person too young to volunteer) is wrong too. What that age is may be different for different young people so will always be a matter of debate. This is where "default social contract" handles things better than "law".
So, a child does no wrong by dosing himself. You do wrong by dosing the child. Get the difference?
If the law, or better yet default social contract, were founded on this simple principle, civilization would have a better chance to flourish.
The False assumption in your argument is the belief that anyone can know what they are getting into. Our social history is littered with the bodies of celebrities which attained unfettered access to drugs.
I knew several people who were not celebrities that died of drug overdoses.
I was just reading last week about Laurel Canyon where all the celebrities live, adjacent to Hollywood. Apparently an affluent white male in that neighborhood has a 1 in 4 chance of dying young. OD, murder, suicide, car accidents. A very high percentage also had parents from either the military/intelligence community, or very old wealth. Especially the 60's icons.
Diogenes wrote: The False assumption in your argument is the belief that anyone can know what they are getting into. Our social history is littered with the bodies of celebrities which attained unfettered access to drugs.
The false assumption in your argument is that you assume I believe anyone can know everything. Consent doesn't require omniscience. It requires sufficient maturity to accept the unknowable, or the known risk.
This is not complicated. The fact that so many dead bodies litter the field of drug addiction demonstrates that many people simply cannot see the consequences of embarking down this road. It is like getting on a roller coaster that looks fine at the entry, but 3/4 of the way through it, the track is gone.
Your argument is that we shouldn't stop people from getting on it anyway.
KitemanSA wrote:
To volunteer is to agree in the absence of force, fraud, or coersion to be involved in an action and to accept the conseqence.
This is one of those occasions where the mantra of libertarianism is more important (to it's adherents) than are the consequences of it's application. Again, I wish we had another lab rat country to demonstrate the fallacy of these ideas. Apparently the consequences to China, massive though they were, were just too small to be noticed by the current cadre of know-better-than-history types.
Turn of the century progressives were just as certain about their ideas too.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
KitemanSA wrote: I am arguing a matter of morality vice ethics. Sapient beings have the right to VOLUNTARY action. The converse, for people who can't think for themselves, is that it is WRONG to involve a person in an act involuntarily.
So yes there would be a prohibition against involving SOMEONE ELSE in the use of drugs that you should be free (as an adult) to choose to do to yourself. Dosing someone else involuntarily IS wrong and should be punished as any other crime. Dosing YOURSELF is your right. Dosing a child (i.e. a person too young to volunteer) is wrong too. What that age is may be different for different young people so will always be a matter of debate. This is where "default social contract" handles things better than "law".
So, a child does no wrong by dosing himself. You do wrong by dosing the child. Get the difference?
If the law, or better yet default social contract, were founded on this simple principle, civilization would have a better chance to flourish.
The False assumption in your argument is the belief that anyone can know what they are getting into. Our social history is littered with the bodies of celebrities which attained unfettered access to drugs.
I knew several people who were not celebrities that died of drug overdoses.
I was just reading last week about Laurel Canyon where all the celebrities live, adjacent to Hollywood. Apparently an affluent white male in that neighborhood has a 1 in 4 chance of dying young. OD, murder, suicide, car accidents. A very high percentage also had parents from either the military/intelligence community, or very old wealth. Especially the 60's icons.
I have long pointed out a connection between prosperity/affluence, and a decline in pragmatism/responsibility. People will often be as foolish as they can afford to be. Easy money tends to make people foolish.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: This is not complicated. The fact that so many dead bodies litter the field of drug addiction demonstrates that many people simply cannot see the consequences of embarking down this road. It is like getting on a roller coaster that looks fine at the entry, but 3/4 of the way through it, the track is gone.
Your argument is that we shouldn't stop people from getting on it anyway.
My argument is that we should stop adults from letting children on and provide such information as we can to dissuade adults from getting on, but allow them to choose to go on if they insist.
Default social contract might provide as how adults who choose to take themselves on such a ride loose certain powers over their childern or certain protections within social contract. But if they are adults it should be THEIR choice.
Diogenes wrote: This is not complicated. The fact that so many dead bodies litter the field of drug addiction demonstrates that many people simply cannot see the consequences of embarking down this road. It is like getting on a roller coaster that looks fine at the entry, but 3/4 of the way through it, the track is gone.
Your argument is that we shouldn't stop people from getting on it anyway.
My argument is that we should stop adults from letting children on and provide such information as we can to dissuade adults from getting on, but allow them to choose to go on if they insist.
Default social contract might provide as how adults who choose to take themselves on such a ride loose certain powers over their childern or certain protections within social contract. But if they are adults it should be THEIR choice.
I suggested the license idea. I can think of no other that might do a better job in attempting to square the circle.
As for letting only the adults on the ride, when it comes to hard drugs, there seems to be very few adults. (i.e. those who can maintain functionality under their influence.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: I suggested the license idea. I can think of no other that might do a better job in attempting to square the circle.
As for letting only the adults on the ride, when it comes to hard drugs, there seems to be very few adults. (i.e. those who can maintain functionality under their influence.)
In today's parlance, a licence is something required by law. It startedd as a limited thing, but has blossomed. I prefer default social contract akin to the Uniform Commercial Code.
I suspect there are many more than you know but they DO continue to act as adults so you never here about them.