Liberty Is Dangerous

[Diogenes]

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.

I am a nasty piece of work, for I, like the original Diogenes, do not tolerate fools lightly. I use graphs because pictures are easier for simple minds to grasp. Of course not all minds are astute enough to comprehend the pictures either.


Were I arguing your side, I would find that picture intimidating as well.
Here's another.

Platzspitz, Zurich Switzerland.

[CKay]

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.

Well, yes it is rather predictable that I should point out the gaping hole in your argument (and you did rather fall into it ).

The answer lays not in yes or no, but in the difference between alcohol and "drugs".

Stuff and nonsense - ethanol is a recreational drug.

If there is such a supra-entity as "drugs", ethanol is certainly in there. It is different from other drugs only in as much as those drugs are different from one another. As it happens, it's more addictive - one of the few recreational drugs for which users can develop physiologically dependence - and exhibits greater associated harms (subjective and societal) than most other drugs. For example, the argument that it is more harmful than mdma is pretty convincing (to me at least).

I garauntee you I can make you a cocaine addict.

With respect, bollox - cocaine, even crack are not to everyone's taste and don't anyway lead to physiological addiction (take cocaine away from an addict and they will certainly experience mental anguish, but not suffer serious physical withdrawal symptoms that a heroin addict - pain, nausea, cramps - or an alcoholic - potentially fatal seizures - would).

You could certainly make a full blown alcoholic or heroin addict out of just about anyone. It would take a while - months probably - but would be possible.

[Diogenes]

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.

There you go again with that "Pushing" argument. "Pushing" won't addict anyone. Addictive substances are what causes addiction.

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..

Really? I'm sure Americans want to push "hotdogs" into Spain, yet the Spanish don't seem to have a 50% addiction rate to American Hotdogs. Perhaps if Hotdogs were an addictive substance, 50% of the Spanish might now be addicted to them.

Gee, I guess "pushing" isn't the deciding factor of addiction. But let us say for the sake of argument that it is "pushing" that causes addiction. Do you think for a minute that if drugs were legalized that there wouldn't be "pushing" ?

You have got to be freakin Kidding me!

Trying to separate drugs and pushing is like trying to separate water from "wet."

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....

And such a thing would prove something about drug addiction occurring or not? More like it would be just a tu quoque argument. (tit for tat.)

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.

And here I feel like i'm talking to Yogi Berra The only appropriate response is "Huh?"


"Never answer an anonymous letter"

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." Source: Baseball Digest (June 1987)

"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical."

"Bill Dickey is learning me his experience."

"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious."

"How can a you hit and think at the same time?"

"I always thought that record would stand until it was broken."

"I can see how he (Sandy Koufax) won twenty-five games. What I don't understand is how he lost five."

"I don't know (if they were men or women fans running naked across the field). They had bags over their heads."

"If people don't want to come out to the ballpark, how are you going to stop them?"

"I'm a lucky guy and I'm happy to be with the Yankees. And I want to thank everyone for making this night necessary."

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did."

"In baseball, you don't know nothing."

"I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?"

"I never said most of the things I said."

"It ain't the heat, it's the humility."

"It gets late early out there."

"I think Little League is wonderful. It keeps the kids out of the house."

"It's like deja vu all over again."

"I wish everybody had the drive he (Joe DiMaggio) had. He never did anything wrong on the field. I'd never seen him dive for a ball, everything was a chest-high catch, and he never walked off the field."

"Little League baseball is a very good thing because it keeps the parents off the streets." Source: Catcher in the Wry (Bob Uecker)

"Ninety percent of this game is half mental." Source: Sports Illustrated (May 14, 1979)

"Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded."

"So I'm ugly. I never saw anyone hit with his face."

"Take it with a grin of salt."

"The game's isn't over until it's over."

"The towels were so thick there I could hardly close my suitcase."

"You can observe a lot just by watching."

"You should always go to other people's funerals, otherwise, they won't come to yours."

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there."

"We made too many wrong mistakes."

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

"All pitchers are liars or crybabies."

[CKay]

I, like the original Diogenes, do not tolerate fools lightly.

Ah, but the original Diogenes was known for his wisdom...

[Diogenes]

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.

Well, yes it is rather predictable that I should point out the gaping hole in your argument (and you did rather fall into it ).

The answer lays not in yes or no, but in the difference between alcohol and "drugs".

Stuff and nonsense - ethanol is a recreational drug.

i.e. Theft and murder are the same thing.

If there is such a supra-entity as "drugs", ethanol is certainly in there. It is different from other drugs only in as much as those drugs are different from one another. As it happens, it's more addictive - one of the few recreational drugs for which users can develop physiologically dependence - and exhibits greater associated harms (subjective and societal) than most other drugs. For example, the argument that it is more harmful than mdma is pretty convincing (to me at least).

It is unfortunately, a social tradition which libertarians WILL defend.

I garauntee you I can make you a cocaine addict.

With respect, bollox - cocaine, even crack are not to everyone's taste and don't anyway lead to physiological addiction (take cocaine away from an addict and they will certainly experience mental anguish, but not suffer serious physical withdrawal symptoms that a heroin addict - pain, nausea, cramps - or an alcoholic - potentially fatal seizures - would).

You could certainly make a full blown alcoholic or heroin addict out of just about anyone. It would take a while - months probably - but would be possible.

And why we should want crack, alcohol, or heroine addicts, you have yet to explain.

[Diogenes]

I, like the original Diogenes, do not tolerate fools lightly.

Ah, but the original Diogenes was also regarded for his wisdom...

We have that in common as well.

[Betruger]

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.

This is still only part of full big picture. Govt is not the solution.

[ladajo]

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.

Well, yes it is rather predictable that I should point out the gaping hole in your argument (and you did rather fall into it ).

The answer lays not in yes or no, but in the difference between alcohol and "drugs".

Stuff and nonsense - ethanol is a recreational drug.

If there is such a supra-entity as "drugs", ethanol is certainly in there. It is different from other drugs only in as much as those drugs are different from one another. As it happens, it's more addictive - one of the few recreational drugs for which users can develop physiologically dependence - and exhibits greater associated harms (subjective and societal) than most other drugs. For example, the argument that it is more harmful than mdma is pretty convincing (to me at least).

I garauntee you I can make you a cocaine addict.

With respect, bollox - cocaine, even crack are not to everyone's taste and don't anyway lead to physiological addiction (take cocaine away from an addict and they will certainly experience mental anguish, but not suffer serious physical withdrawal symptoms that a heroin addict - pain, nausea, cramps - or an alcoholic - potentially fatal seizures - would).

You could certainly make a full blown alcoholic or heroin addict out of just about anyone. It would take a while - months probably - but would be possible.

You are showing a lack of education regarding addiction and mechanisms.

I guarantee you that I can make you a crack addict, and it would not take months.

Here is what a UK Rehab Center thinks:

Q) What is crack addiction?
A) Once an individual has tried crack, they may be unable to predict or control the extent to which they will continue to use. Crack is probably the most addictive substance that has been devised so far. Crack addicts must have more and more crack to sustain their high and avoid the intense "crash" or depression that follows their binges. They become physically and psychologically dependent on crack, which is often a result of only few doses of the drug taken within a few days. This dependence can lead to addiction.

http://www.drugrehab.co.uk/FAQ-crack.htm

Here are some observations from US Studies:

Cocaine is a highly addictive substance. People who take it can become physically and psychologically dependant upon it to the point where they can't control their cravings. Researchers have found that cocaine-addicted monkeys will press a bar more than 12,000 times to get a single dose of it. As soon as they get it, they will start pressing the bar for more.

and here are some notes on sustained usage:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/r ... ocaine-use

[CKay]

I guarantee you that I can make you a crack addict, and it would not take months.

Once an individual has tried crack, they maybe unable to predict or control the extent to which they will continue to use . Crack is probably the most addictive substance that has been devised so far. Crack addicts must have more and more crack to sustain their high and avoid the intense "crash" or depression that follows their binges. They become physically and psychologically dependent on crack, which is often a result of only few doses of the drug taken within a few days. This dependence can lead to addiction.

Note "they may be unable to predict or control the extent to which they will continue to use [...] this dependence can lead to addiction."

For any one individual, trying crack will not inevitably lead to addiction. Many can take crack and/or cocaine without addiction. Conversely some people do indeed only need to have it once to develop an instant strong liking for it (incidentally, some alcoholics report a similar instant reaction upon having their first taste of alcohol).

You could not guarantee to make a coke/crack addict out of any one given individual. I'm darn certain it wouldn't work on me.

They become physically [...] dependent on crack

There is no evidence for physiological dependence with crack or cocaine.

You are showing a lack of education regarding addiction and mechanisms.

Hmm, I have a fair idea what I'm talking about - I'm not basing my opinion on stuff I've just looked up on Google.

[Diogenes]

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.

This is still only part of full big picture. Govt is not the solution.

I would point out this.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
-Winston Churchill.-

[Diogenes]

I guarantee you that I can make you a crack addict, and it would not take months.

Once an individual has tried crack, they maybe unable to predict or control the extent to which they will continue to use . Crack is probably the most addictive substance that has been devised so far. Crack addicts must have more and more crack to sustain their high and avoid the intense "crash" or depression that follows their binges. They become physically and psychologically dependent on crack, which is often a result of only few doses of the drug taken within a few days. This dependence can lead to addiction.

Note "they may be unable to predict or control the extent to which they will continue to use [...] this dependence can lead to addiction."

For any one individual, trying crack will not inevitably lead to addiction. Many can take crack and/or cocaine without addiction. Conversely some people do indeed only need to have it once to develop an instant strong liking for it (incidentally, some alcoholics report a similar instant reaction upon having their first taste of alcohol).

You could not guarantee to make a coke/crack addict out of any one given individual. I'm darn certain it wouldn't work on me.

They become physically [...] dependent on crack

There is no evidence for physiological dependence with crack or cocaine.

You are showing a lack of education regarding addiction and mechanisms.

Hmm, I have a fair idea what I'm talking about - I'm not basing my opinion on stuff I've just looked up on Google.

You have personal knowledge of this stuff?


viewtopic.php?p=75856&highlight=jack+balling#75856

[ScottL]

Diogenes, unfortunately academia and the real world don't agree with you on the China debate. Not only did the British Navy push via peer pressure, opium on the chinese population, but they physically forced them when it was refused. They forced an addiction. Not once, but twice the British Royal Navy was brought in to force the use of drugs on the citizenry.

Letting go of this side topic entirely, your hang up is addiction and its dangerous results. I am of the belief that any addiction is "dangerous." Sex addiction leads to permiscuous life, rape, and the destruction of others' lives. Addiction to gambling, alcohol, drugs, sex, etc....will lead to any number of potential rights violations. The question here is, do people have the choice, the will, to choose addiction, or not. They have the choice to take the substance knowing the full effect it could have. That is their responsibility. At what point do you take away individual responsibility?

If you take away responsibility, then you have to ok government intervention, whether it be an addictive substance or a financial crisis.

[ladajo]

There is no evidence for physiological dependence with crack or cocaine.

Well then, let's strap you in a chair and see if you are right.

I have been to craphole west Colombia, I have seen the cocaine addicts that were hooked on purpose in order to be controlled by the ones in charge. But I am guessing that you have never even heard of Putamayo or Tumaco. I have seen addiction up and down Central America in person. I have also seen it in the Carribean, South Asia, North America and even Europe. I have even been responsible for a 14 metric ton pile of pure cocaine while sitting with it in Cartagena and fully understood risks it posed just by being in the same room with it. I would guess you have never even seen a real kilo of cocaine in person, let alone touched it.
I have also seen family members get addicted and one die as a result.
Have you?

[CKay]

I would guess you have never even seen a real kilo of cocaine in person, let alone touched it

haha, guess again

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, unfortunately academia and the real world don't agree with you on the China debate. Not only did the British Navy push via peer pressure, opium on the chinese population, but they physically forced them when it was refused. They forced an addiction. Not once, but twice the British Royal Navy was brought in to force the use of drugs on the citizenry.

Again, did they stuff pipes in their mouths?

Letting go of this side topic entirely, your hang up is addiction and its dangerous results. I am of the belief that any addiction is "dangerous." Sex addiction leads to permiscuous life, rape, and the destruction of others' lives. Addiction to gambling, alcohol, drugs, sex, etc....will lead to any number of potential rights violations. The question here is, do people have the choice, the will, to choose addiction, or not. They have the choice to take the substance knowing the full effect it could have. That is their responsibility. At what point do you take away individual responsibility?

When drugs are involved, the free will process of the brain is short circuited. You cannot argue that people under the influence of drugs can operate under free will. Addicts no longer have knowledge of free will.

If you take away responsibility, then you have to ok government intervention, whether it be an addictive substance or a financial crisis.

No, they are not the same. You also overlook the possibility of pharmaceuticals manufacturing explicitly addictive drugs, which they then have a monopoly on. In a society of legalized drugs, you cannot prevent this. You can argue that their army of drug zombies/slaves are exercising free will, but only a fool would believe it.

When you are dealing with substances that specifically modify brain behavior, you have long left the waters of "free will."


If you want to see how such an idea might work in practice, watch a few episodes of "Deep Space Nine" pertaining to the Jem'Hadar's drug addiction to "Ketracel-white."

No doubt if such a thing were to be attempted, you would never try to interfere between the user and the supplier.