Liberty Is Dangerous

[Skipjack]

For any one individual, trying crack will not inevitably lead to addiction. Many can take crack and/or cocaine without addiction.

Sure, you can also have unprotected sexual contact with a person that is HIV positive and it will not inevitably to infection...
You can also play russian roulette and you will not inevitably shoot yourself in the head. I would still not recommend it.

[Teahive]

Legal Opium importation started in 1758

It did not, and it could not, because Opium was not legal in China back then.

Argue what you want, but use facts not fiction.

[ScottL]

Again, did they stuff pipes in their mouths?

Correct, as verified by previous links posted and any reading on the subject. They quite literally forced it on many against their will. The rest was a mixture of peer pressure, physical threat, and the need of the UK to flex its' economic muscles such that China would cave. To be clear, Opium wasn't legal at the time, but was pushed as said time and again by a colonial super power. Colonialism, the gift that keeps on giving.

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.

They have the free will to choose to start taking said drug "usually." By using this free will to take a known mind-altering drug is on them. They had a choice in the beginning, after that, they pay the consequence. You can't pre-emptively stop these actions, only watch as they either keep their habit under control or watch the train wreck when they don't. Instead of prohibition, I'd prefer education personally.

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."

Did you really just use Deep Space Nine as a reference for your point? Haha

[Diogenes]

Legal Opium importation started in 1758

It did not, and it could not, because Opium was not legal in China back then.

Argue what you want, but use facts not fiction.

Why didn't you supply the correct date then? The sort of reading needed to find it would do people good. I mentioned what I recalled from memory, and wasn't too concerned if it was inaccurate, because I figured that anyone who called me on it would LEARN something about the issue.


I would point out that any later date makes the acuteness of the problem even worse. Same Damage, shorter time span.





Edit: Just found this little bit of info.

The only problem was supply, which Britain solved in 1756 by conquering Calcutta.

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

[Diogenes]

Again, did they stuff pipes in their mouths?

Correct, as verified by previous links posted and any reading on the subject. They quite literally forced it on many against their will. The rest was a mixture of peer pressure, physical threat, and the need of the UK to flex its' economic muscles such that China would cave. To be clear, Opium wasn't legal at the time, but was pushed as said time and again by a colonial super power. Colonialism, the gift that keeps on giving.

I cannot believe that you really think they stuck pipes in their mouths. Even so, if they did it then, what would stop someone from doing it now? The law? Please. For the profits to be had from your own personal slaves, masked men would do it to anyone they could catch.

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.

They have the free will to choose to start taking said drug "usually." By using this free will to take a known mind-altering drug is on them. They had a choice in the beginning, after that, they pay the consequence. You can't pre-emptively stop these actions, only watch as they either keep their habit under control or watch the train wreck when they don't. Instead of prohibition, I'd prefer education personally.

Taking a drug that will have immediate and instantaneous effects on a person is not a "choice." As Strychnine is immediately fatal, so too are some drugs immediately addictive to some people. It is their biology which will determine if a certain chemical is the key with which to lock them into slavery.

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."

Did you really just use Deep Space Nine as a reference for your point? Haha

I was actually quite pleased with myself for thinking of it. It IS the only portrayal of which I know regarding a drug being used to control a group of people. The same sort of control occurred in China, with the difference being that the suppliers wanted money, not warriors.

Do you not think it is possible for a pharmaceutical company to produce a drug that is absolutely addictive?

[choff]

I was introduced to paragliding by a friend.

It is, unfortunately, a dangerous activity - statistically far more dangerous than, for example, taking ecstasy.

Should paragliding be criminalised and those caught indulging in recreational aviation face punishment, prison even?

Locally we've had 5 young people die recently from taking E cut with PMMA, no recent deaths from paragliding.

1. Ecstasy cut with something else is no longer ecstasy (you can thank prohibition for creating a completely deregulated market that supplies contaminated drugs).

2. Like Scott said - that's just anecdotal evidence.

To make an informed judgement about the relative risks we'd need to know the numbers of ecstasy users vs. paragliders and the number of fatalities.

In the UK there are about 5,000 active paragliders with on average 2 deaths per year, gving a fatality rate of 1 death per 2,500. Compare that with around 30 fatalities per year out of roughly 1,000,000 mdma users, giving 1 per 33,000. Paragliding is an order of magnitude more dangerous!

Even equestrianism has a higher level of risk than ecstasy use - from WikiP:

David Nutt, a former chairman of the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, stated in the Journal of Psychopharmacology in January 2009 that ecstasy use compared favorably with horse riding in terms of risk, with ecstasy leading to around 30 deaths a year in the UK compared to about 10 from horse riding, and "acute harm to person" occurring in approximately 1 in 10,000 episodes of ecstasy use compared to about 1 in 350 episodes of horse riding. Dr. Nutt notes the lack of a balanced risk assessment in public discussions of MDMA.

And here's some anecdotal evidence: only a couple of months back my friend told me of a local girl - one of his daughters friends - who was killed when her horse got spooked and reared up. Mum discovered her, family devastated, popular lass with a bright future ahead of her, etc.

So isn't it time we had a moral crusade against the evil horse riding craze that's robbing our kids of their future? And anyone who gets caught doing equestrianism should get a criminal record, repeat offenders banged up with murderers and rapists - it's for their own good!

Another local death from tainted Ecstacy yesterday. The cops are asking people to hand in any they've got, no questions asked. In my country they try to concentrate more on prosecuting the top level dealers, they make it look like candy and sell it to kids.

[CKay]

For any one individual, trying crack will not inevitably lead to addiction. Many can take crack and/or cocaine without addiction.

Sure, you can also have unprotected sexual contact with a person that is HIV positive and it will not inevitably to infection...
You can also play russian roulette and you will not inevitably shoot yourself in the head. I would still not recommend it.

Nice strawman.

Nowhere did I recommend taking cocaine. Horrible stuff - makes people behave like Diogenes.

That comment (that you quoted out of context) was a response to ladajo's assertion that he could turn anyone - including me - into a cocaine addict. I have reason to believe that that is not true.

[CKay]

Another local death from tainted Ecstacy yesterday.

And this illustrates what - that prohibition is doing a good job where you are?

[Diogenes]

For any one individual, trying crack will not inevitably lead to addiction. Many can take crack and/or cocaine without addiction.

Sure, you can also have unprotected sexual contact with a person that is HIV positive and it will not inevitably to infection...
You can also play russian roulette and you will not inevitably shoot yourself in the head. I would still not recommend it.

Nice strawman.

Nowhere did I recommend taking cocaine. Horrible stuff - makes people behave like Diogenes.

Then you should get some. Perhaps it will stimulate your endocrine system to produce some commonsensium.

That comment (that you quoted out of context) was a response to ladajo's assertion that he could turn anyone - including me - into a cocaine addict. I have reason to believe that that is not true.

Yes, one would need a functional brain stem in order for that to occur.

[Diogenes]

Another local death from tainted Ecstacy yesterday.

And this illustrates what - that prohibition is doing a good job where you are?

You just aren't getting my point. It is doing a better job than the ALTERNATIVE.

Again-


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


I trust you are able to mentally substitute the word "prohibition" for democracy.

[happyjack27]

just to respond to the title of this thread:

liberty is dangerous, yes, but the alternative is much more so.

[KitemanSA]

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


I trust you are able to mentally substitute the word "prohibition" for democracy.

Except that "democracy" is on the Liberty side and "prohibition" is on the authoritarian side. For your substitution to make sense Churchill's statement would have needed to be "It has been said that monarchy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".

To which I would say, he needs to have his head examined. I trust you can mentally substitute the word "you" and "your" for "he" and "his"?

[Diogenes]

just to respond to the title of this thread:

liberty is dangerous, yes, but the alternative is much more so.

The title of this thread is a misnomer. What the drug legalization kooks are calling "Liberty" is in fact a demand that their childish behavior be "indulged" by the rest of us who have to pay the bills for it.

[choff]

Another local death from tainted Ecstacy yesterday.

And this illustrates what - that prohibition is doing a good job where you are?

No, just that some kids have died and their parents are in mourning. As I said, Canadian cops concentrate on high level dealers, they tend to spend less time bothering with low level stuff, except when someboby gets hurt by it. Also note, they're asking people to hand in the pills no questions asked, because they don't want more people dying senselessly.

You can argue that the reason we have poisoned E is because the usual precursors were banned, so the cookers went with more dangerous chemicals. That also misses the point that if they're just switching to more dangerous material, they don't give a darn if somebody dies from it. They shouldn't be making it look like happy pills and pushing it on children either.

They used to tell scientists working on NBC weapons that if they didn't do the work somebody else would do it anyway, stuff to make them feel less bad about the fact their skill was being used to make war material. The cookers and dealers use the same rationalizations.

[ladajo]

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

haha, guess again

I am sure in your vast experience with cocaine, where you have handled kilos of pure substance at a time, this has also put you in a position to know that folks have no physiological dependancy from exposure.

Of course, these guys might disagree...

The biological part of this disease refers to experiencing withdrawal symptoms when you reduce or stop your use of substances, or developing a tolerance for a drug, which causes you to need more of it to achieve the desired effect.

http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/4 ... Page1.html

Withdrawal symptoms and signs for cocaine include irritability, suppressed appetite, problems with sleep, and craving the substance.

http://www.medicinenet.com/cocaine_and_ ... /page6.htm

and...of course these physiological attributes are just imaginary...

Tolerance, which is either markedly decreased effect of cocaine or a need to significantly increase the amount used in order to achieve the same high or other desired effects



Withdrawal, which is either physical or psychological signs or symptoms consistent with withdrawal from cocaine, or taking it or a substance that is chemically related in order to avoid developing symptoms of withdrawal

http://www.medicinenet.com/cocaine_and_ ... /page3.htm


I htink that the big picture item you are missing in all this is the idea that a drug user can control the involuntary risk to others.

You have argued that pot smokers are safer drivers because they drive slower and are less agressive. I linked you studies which show that yes pot smokers do drive slower, etc, but at a cost of reduced reflexes and judgement. This in turn means a great deal to the child that unknowingly steps out from behind a car, or to the driver in the oncoming lane when the pot smoker has a blow out and is slow to react, etc.

You think that drug users can in the larger aggregate, keep it to themselves and not impact others involuntarily. I say this is a myth perpetuated by drug users that ignores the repsonsibility to others in one's own actions.
As I said before, paragliding over a field or water, or someother safe area, have at it. I put it with bungie jumping, skydiving, etc. But when you start bungie jumping over a freeway, or skydiving over a kids playground, now you have introduced involuntary risk to others. This is fundamentally wrong.

Any one who uses drugs takes a much higher risk in assigning involuntary risk to others, enough so that strict controls and disincentives are called for. You like to cite alcohol, fine. But you fail to understand that alcohol is controlled, and for those very reasons. Where you fail in comprehension, is that the follow-on risk factors of a beer or shot for the average person are much lower than for a hit from a controlled drug. That is why controlled drugs have much higher controls and penalties. You argue that more people are damaged from alcohol than drugs. You fail to see that if given free access to drugs, it would be much worse impacts than alcohol given the magnitudes higher induced failure modes and the fact that for the average person, taking a drug hit carries with it a higher risk of developing into a dependancy (addiction) than taking a drink and becoming addicted.
Why are you so agreeable to trampling the rights of others with your cry of "Free Will"? Why don't you get that "Free Will" is all good, except when it becomes selfish and harms others?

I guarantee you that I can addict you to cocaine. Addiction by definition is physiological (dopamine and other vectors) and physcological.
If you are a former user, then you of all should understand the risk of using ever again.

Or maybe you are an "internet genius" that bases your worldly experiences on a trip to the local museum and some googling, and a wild party when in college.

By your arguments of "Free Will" that means that I can choose to drive fast and run you over, because I thought driving fast was ok, and I did not mean to run you over. Ergo, it was ok.
I don't want to run you over. But I am more than happy to strap you in a chair and see if you are right about your "resistance" to cocaine addiction. I say I can get you hooked. I know it is so because I have seen it, as well as the dead it has produced. It is a proven and effective tool used by the manufacturing chain, which is why they keep doing it.

You have no real idea of what you are talking about. You have not seen the chain, soup to nuts as I have. It is clear from your selfish limited point of view. Next time you are in Tumaco, send my regards, and sign your name under the RPG blast mark at the hospital, if you manage to live long enough or not get kidnapped getting to there.

Stop being so selfish and figure out that there is an entire planet full of people besides you.

If you think drugs are so safe, why not take them? If not, why let others?