Libertine is Dangerous.

[Diogenes]

A more accurate title for the latest incarnation of the "drug" discussion.

Yes. It. Is.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

You do realize you just agreed to non-prohibition for LSD right? Just pointing it out in your 2nd to last from this post.

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

[Diogenes]

You talk about it as though it were a bad thing. Are you sure you are on the right side?

I'm not on any side.

Maybe not by choice. Not too many coins actually land on their edge.

[Diogenes]

Sometimes I'm just here for comic relief.

Yeah, I am sometimes a bit dense like that, so help me out by putting a wherever you do that

Sometimes I try to use a form of humor known as "dead pan." Here is a photo of the all time Master of "dead pan" humor.

[ScottL]

Anyhow, I take it that you do not advocate prohibition for non-addictive substances such as psilocybin and LSD?

No more than I do for Dynamite or Antibiotics. Harmless stuff like that ought to be available to anyone without requiring a license or permit.

He's asking if you do not advocate prohibition on LSD in which you respond no more than dynamite and antibiotics which aren't prohibited. Maybe you meant something different, but based on this language, my understanding is reasonable.

[Diogenes]

Anyhow, I take it that you do not advocate prohibition for non-addictive substances such as psilocybin and LSD?

No more than I do for Dynamite or Antibiotics. Harmless stuff like that ought to be available to anyone without requiring a license or permit.

He's asking if you do not advocate prohibition on LSD in which you respond no more than dynamite and antibiotics which aren't prohibited. Maybe you meant something different, but based on this language, my understanding is reasonable.

Usage of Dynamite is licensed in my understanding. Antibiotics are regulated and must be approved by a man with a Medical License and another man with a pharmacy license.

I have already mentioned previously that some sort of licensing system for recreational drug users might be a feasible idea. I have actually come to favor the idea of a drug/alcohol license which will allow the responsible to use drugs or alcohol yet interdict the irresponsible.

I think such a scheme might bleed off the pressure for illegitimate use, while allowing those who can handle such things responsibly a legal method for doing so.

[Diogenes]

Anyhow, I take it that you do not advocate prohibition for non-addictive substances such as psilocybin and LSD?

No more than I do for Dynamite or Antibiotics. Harmless stuff like that ought to be available to anyone without requiring a license or permit.

He's asking if you do not advocate prohibition on LSD in which you respond no more than dynamite and antibiotics which aren't prohibited. Maybe you meant something different, but based on this language, my understanding is reasonable.

While i'm on the subject, I believe every adult should be able to own and use firearms, but I was very much in favor of the creation of a firearms carry license. Yes, everyone has a right to them, but other people have a right not to get shot by amateurs carrying weapons.

Go through a training program that insures you know how to carry a gun responsibly, and that insures you won't be a threat to other people, and I welcome your presence in my vicinity.

Dangerous stuff requires a minimal degree of assurance of competence. Society has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to minimize injury to innocents.

[hanelyp]

While i'm on the subject, I believe every adult should be able to own and use firearms, but I was very much in favor of the creation of a firearms carry license.

As long as the license is based on objective standards and available to any competent non-criminal citizen adult.

[ScottL]

Anyhow, I take it that you do not advocate prohibition for non-addictive substances such as psilocybin and LSD?

No more than I do for Dynamite or Antibiotics. Harmless stuff like that ought to be available to anyone without requiring a license or permit.

He's asking if you do not advocate prohibition on LSD in which you respond no more than dynamite and antibiotics which aren't prohibited. Maybe you meant something different, but based on this language, my understanding is reasonable.

While i'm on the subject, I believe every adult should be able to own and use firearms, but I was very much in favor of the creation of a firearms carry license. Yes, everyone has a right to them, but other people have a right not to get shot by amateurs carrying weapons.

Go through a training program that insures you know how to carry a gun responsibly, and that insures you won't be a threat to other people, and I welcome your presence in my vicinity.

Dangerous stuff requires a minimal degree of assurance of competence. Society has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to minimize injury to innocents.

So you agree education plays a large part in preventing stupidity? One of my arguments all along....

[ladajo]

Scott,
From the other thread:

And that is how I feel about your "pushing" argument. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I just don't think I'd start doing drugs just because they're available. You may feel different about yourself, but no amount of availability is going to get me to do them. That's my argument on pushing vs. availability. If you educate people on the subject while available, I think you'll find most people will stay away and/or drugs will become a problem of the past, but there are only a few real world cases.


As for your "old man" story, I'll admit I'm young, but my view from my teens, through 20s and entering 30s haven't changed. I tend to try to abide by a common sense interpretation of "live and let live." Of course common sense is subjective.

I also think that education matters. However on first take the below stats may indicate otherwise.

Education
Illicit drug use in 2010 varied by the educational status of adults aged 18 or older, with the rate of current illicit drug use lower among college graduates (6.3 percent) than those with some college (10.7 percent), high school graduates (8.5 percent), and those who had not graduated from high school (10.8 percent). However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent).

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSD ... ts.htm#2.1

On second take, when one considers who (left slant) controls the education system in the US, it may make more sense. And if you add another dimension, to include that higher education tends for higher interest in media(news, etc), and who (left slant again) drives the media, it may indicate that there is a self-licking ice cream cone effect where a definite impact is seen from education to media influence to an individuals take on things.

Interesting in any event.

edit: added study link.

[MSimon]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 93679.html

[MSimon]

Ah. Libertines vs Christians.

The libertines have better propaganda. And there is no better propaganda for the libertine lifestyle than prohibition.

"You mean people are willing to risk jail for that stuff? Must be some fun."

The best way I know to capture the rebellious (aren't they all?) youth. Youth drug use rates in Holland are 1/2 those in America. Why? We have better advertising.

Not only that - prohibition teaches youth the clandestine arts. And how to regularly commit felonies. There is no better way to promote outlawry than a prohibition regime.

I'm happy to see I have so many allies here. Keep up the good work D. Us libertines need all the company we can get.

I blame it on Jazz. So did Harry Anslinger. You know about jazz music don't you? The corrupter of youth.

http://www.ukcia.org/potculture/48/anslinger.html

[MSimon]

After National marijuana prohibition became law in America, Commissioner Anslinger found out that a certain group of people - all of whom were identifiable by their shared occupation - were flagrantly violating the law by continuing to smoke pot. What the transgressors had in common was that they had rhythm. In fact, they included all the key geniuses of Jazz: Louis Armstrong, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonius Monk, Count Basie, Jimmy Dorsey, Duke Ellington, Lionel Hampton and Cab Calloway, to name a choice selection.

From the early 1930s, the Commissioner compiled a dossier that would later be known as the 'Marijuana and Musicians' file, noting each and every marijuana case involving a member of the musical fraternity. Documents from the Anslinger papers and the DEA Library in Washington DC reveal that, from 1943 to 1948, Anslinger plotted a pogrom of jazz and swing musicians, ordering all his agents throughout the USA to watch and keep criminal files on all the musicians in their areas so that they could all be rounded-up in one fell swoop.

http://www.ukcia.org/potculture/48/anslinger.html

Cab Calloway doing "Reefer Man" - 1933 before prohibition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svoSSdsNhtA

Movie version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ

[MSimon]

Before prohibition pot use was not too wide spread. Thirty years later it became a national craze. And with that craze came a whole host of other prohibited substances. Why?

Well the youth were being trained in the clandestine arts. In fact criminals are targets of espionage agencies because they need less training and are used to breaking laws.

Given that half the youth try an illegal drug these days, that is quite a cohort to recruit from. Enemies of the state to boot.

[ScottL]

Ladajo,

The question was directed to Diogenes. He tends to avoid some questions or trains of thought. I don't find this open-minded in the least, but he claims to be such. According to his argument, the everyday perosn, including myself, will start doing drugs simply because they are available. I've countered, pointing out several drugs currently available to me of which I do none.