I respect Simon a lot. On any other subject he makes good sense, but on this subject I cannot even comprehend what he writes any more.ladajo wrote:Nice logical fallacy rant Simon. One of your better ones the last couple of years.
It is true, if there were no people, there would be no people addicted to drugs. I fully agree.
Libertine is Dangerous.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
The trouble is, we've heard all these outlandish rants before. Again, they don't look so much like an intellectual discussion as they do this:CKay wrote:Oh right... when Simon wrote:ladajo wrote:Nice logical fallacy rant Simon. One of your better ones the last couple of years.
It is true, if there were no people, there would be no people addicted to drugs. I fully agree.
instead of just interpreting all that at face value, on my first reading I stupidly attributed an ironic subtext that I guess is not there.Since drug use peaks in the 15 to 25 year old cohort it might be wise to ban children as well. China has a one child rule. America needs a no child rule. To stamp out drug use. [...] If Americans stopped having children the drug problem might finally become manageable.[...] Another alternative is the death penalty for pregnant women and the men who got them pregnant. Once there are no more children the drug problem eventually goes away.[...] A police state should do the trick nicely.[...] We need to get more white kids in prison.
That's almosts as dumb as someone failing to detect irony, even where that ironic intent is clearly flagged up with obviously extreme and ridiculous statements.
Poe's Law in action.
Just like Calvin, DIRE consequences are threatened if someone doesn't get what they want.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
ladajo wrote:
If that is the case, I strongly feel it need to be addressed. I, as stated, feel that awareness and education is a foundation to controlling problems. On the complete legalization point, I am still very much thinking that is a bad idea. I do see some merit to explore a partial control system, like alcohol, but how to implement that idea effectively remains elusive for me.
Have you given any thought to my suggestion of a "use" license? A Check box on your driver's license allows you to buy Alcohol or Weed, and verifies that you have been educated as to the risks and responsibilities involved.
A bartender or liquor store employee only need see your drivers license (a current practice in many places anyway) to verify that you are able to imbibe responsibly. It would allow bartenders to weed out the repeat DUI people right away. The same thing with thereafter legalized Pot shops.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Cocaine was legal in the U.S. until 1970 when it was classified as a controlled substance and yet was never as popular as alcohol. Your assumptions don't have any basis in reality. Prohibition was created to prevent African-American males from raping Caucasian women, a dubious claim, manufactured by the media from the 10s to 70s. The choice of prohibition was made based on racial prejudices and fear mongering. To be clear, Cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic. Thanks for playing the game....better luck next time and good luck in your future endevours.Think for a moment if Cocaine were as legal as alcohol. Ask yourself if you would take a drink of the one, why you would feel an onus against taking a hit of the other? From what i've seen, The Coolest parties in Los Angeles pretty much always have a little blow on a table somewhere.
If it weren't illegal, I expect it would be as popular as Alcohol, but it is a relatively small segment of the population that likes to live dangerously.
Availability was also a completely different animal then. The coke factories and distribution systems were still coming up to speed to meet demand.Cocaine was legal in the U.S. until 1970 when it was classified as a controlled substance and yet was never as popular as alcohol.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
I really hate to tie it to Alcohol in any way. One of the largest issues and dangers in drug use, is when drugs are used together with alcohol (or other drugs). The risk really shoots up when mixing.Diogenes wrote:ladajo wrote:
If that is the case, I strongly feel it need to be addressed. I, as stated, feel that awareness and education is a foundation to controlling problems. On the complete legalization point, I am still very much thinking that is a bad idea. I do see some merit to explore a partial control system, like alcohol, but how to implement that idea effectively remains elusive for me.
Have you given any thought to my suggestion of a "use" license? A Check box on your driver's license allows you to buy Alcohol or Weed, and verifies that you have been educated as to the risks and responsibilities involved.
A bartender or liquor store employee only need see your drivers license (a current practice in many places anyway) to verify that you are able to imbibe responsibly. It would allow bartenders to weed out the repeat DUI people right away. The same thing with thereafter legalized Pot shops.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Because it hasn't happened in Portugal - quite the reverse, in fact.Diogenes wrote:Are you familiar with what happened in China? Did you know that by 1905, 50% of Adult males in Manchuria were addicted to opium? (Or so says various sources.)
If you decriminalize, why would you think the same thing that happened to China wouldn't happen here?
You are kidding, right? When you say stuff like this it makes me think you aren't knowledgeable enough to discuss this subject. This stuff is a "not even on the radar" level of ignorance.ScottL wrote:Cocaine was legal in the U.S. until 1970 when it was classified as a controlled substance and yet was never as popular as alcohol. Your assumptions don't have any basis in reality. Prohibition was created to prevent African-American males from raping Caucasian women, a dubious claim, manufactured by the media from the 10s to 70s. The choice of prohibition was made based on racial prejudices and fear mongering. To be clear, Cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic. Thanks for playing the game....better luck next time and good luck in your future endevours.Think for a moment if Cocaine were as legal as alcohol. Ask yourself if you would take a drink of the one, why you would feel an onus against taking a hit of the other? From what i've seen, The Coolest parties in Los Angeles pretty much always have a little blow on a table somewhere.
If it weren't illegal, I expect it would be as popular as Alcohol, but it is a relatively small segment of the population that likes to live dangerously.
Cocaine was made illegal by the Harrison Narcotics act of 1914. There was a prior act called the pure food and drug act, that mandated ingredients such as cocaine had to be included on the label as well as how large of a dosage they were. This act pretty much killed the patent medicines industry because most of such concoctions used cocaine as a prime ingredient.
In 1911, the Coca Cola company was taken to courtbecause it was believed they were putting actual coca leaves (containing cocaine) into their beverages. (They actually DID put coca leaves into their product, but they claim to use a chemical process to strip out all of the cocaine.
Why are you repeating that other crap without knowing about the stuff which is true? You've got some learning to do I think.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
CKay wrote:Because it hasn't happened in Portugal - quite the reverse, in fact.Diogenes wrote:Are you familiar with what happened in China? Did you know that by 1905, 50% of Adult males in Manchuria were addicted to opium? (Or so says various sources.)
If you decriminalize, why would you think the same thing that happened to China wouldn't happen here?
How long do you think it takes for wide spread addiction to occur? It took China a hundred years to get to the 50% point in one province. A quick internet search reveals all the usual suspects trumpeting Portugal's experiment as a success. Strangely enough, not everyone feels this way. NPR is a source that I would consider Liberal, yet they are not reporting Portugal's drug policy as a success.
When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356 ... Experiment
Most likely, all the claims of "success" are the result of Socialist Bureaucrats in Portugal declaring the programs they enacted to be a "success." I've seen this game played before. Not too many socialist governments will trumpet their ideas as having failed. In this, only time will tell.
Let me know in another decade or so how Portugal's drug experiment worked out in practice. Since the country is going bankrupt, they probably won't be able to afford drugs anyway, so in a decade, drug usage might actually drop just because of that. No doubt it will go on the statistics as a credit to their drug policy.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
CKay wrote:Because it hasn't happened in Portugal - quite the reverse, in fact.Diogenes wrote:Are you familiar with what happened in China? Did you know that by 1905, 50% of Adult males in Manchuria were addicted to opium? (Or so says various sources.)
If you decriminalize, why would you think the same thing that happened to China wouldn't happen here?
Says who? The Cato institute? They've been blowing this horn since forever. All the advocates of drug legalization are saying "look, the idea which we've been advocating all along, Works! See, we're right! "
Drugs are still illegal in Portugal. They still arrest and prosecute Dealers, they just let the users get away with it. There might be an argument for not bothering with little fish and using those resources to go after the big fish, but that is not the same thing as saying let all the fish go.
You guys are saying "let all the fish go." Portugal has not even done that.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
CKay wrote:Strawman - where have I advocated wholesale drug liberalisation?Diogenes wrote:You guys are saying "let all the fish go." Portugal has not even done that.
I'm in favour of the kind of thing that Portugal has tried, but as you point out, that is far from legalising the entire drugs trade.
When you jump into a discussion and pick a side, you ought to understand fully what the side you have picked is advocating.
Yes, MSimon and company are advocating the legalization of the entire drugs trade. They want to make ALL DRUGS legal for sale and distribution in the United States.
I hope this clarifies your position for you.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Your technical approach is understood, and technically correct. Alcohol is a drug. So is sugar for that matter, and even aspirin.CKay wrote:Why do you insist on this artificial separation between alcohol and 'drugs'?ladajo wrote: One of the largest issues and dangers in drug use, is when drugs are used together with alcohol (or other drugs).
Alcohol *is* a recreational drug. End of.
The difference that I choose to stick to lays with the accepted social connotation. If you have not caught that nuance from me yet, it should be clear now. To the Average Joe, Alcohol is not a drug, but Cocaine and MJ are. This is an important distinction to understand when discussing the dynamics of control mechanisms, especially those that are taken in a major social context such as society at large.
Why do you insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)