Somebody Is Paying The Medical Bill

[choff]

If one looks at the spread of tobacco from the first introduction to Europeans until the modern era, you see 0% addiction to 35%. Most of the 35% are neither traumatized or genetically predisposed to addiction. Also, they weren't forced into using, it was perfectly legal.

Another thing, there was a video of an Afgan village about a year ago where heroin addiction went from 0% to 90%. You can't say the whole of the village population were trauma victims or genetically predisposed. Sometimes when something is legal and newly introduced the result is disaster.

[KitemanSA]

You misunderstand my point. I am talking about how you think it should be handled by our government. If you feel it should be prohibited, then you are advocating something on the one hand of which you disapprove on the other hand.

Should the white slave trade be prohibited? In other words, does Prohibition "work" in this case?

Oh, I understood your "point". You missed mine. The government should protect the right of individuals (sapient beings) to act voluntarily. Thus, the trading of a slave (INVOLUNTARY servitude) violates the right of the "item" being traded. Protect the item being traded (the sapient being who is being violated).

On the other hand, hard drugs have no right to voluntary action. The traders DO. The government should protect their right to VOLUNTARY action. Certainly, the government should not VIOLATE their right.

Very simple.

[KitemanSA]

So you can't violate the drug's right. And if the two individuals are trading the drug voluntarily, there is nothing wrong with the action.

Nope you can't violate the drug's rights.

But drug users sure can (and do) violate involuntarily, the rights of others with their behaviors and activities.

And any time they do, take them to court, etither personally for tort cases or criminally for acts of CRIMES (not felonies, crimes, where people violate your right to voluntary action). My concern with saying that is that authoritarians and other legalists will jump in and say that drug use is a crime. No, it is a felony. It is also frequenctly STUPID, but it is NOT a crime. Only those who are self enslaved mistakenly equate a crime and a felony.

And, just who are you to judge how "voluntary" the transaction is. Given that drug use disrupts cognitive function, just how voluntary is it?

Are you going to say that anyone who takes any drug at any time is ipso-facto unable to act voluntarily? Only if you actually believe that crap would the drug laws be righteous. Unless you are willing to make that claim, then ADULTS must be assumed competent to make that choice until proven unable. At such time as an individual starts exhibiting the characteristis you describe, and are adjudges so by a fully informed jury of the community, their actions must be asumed voluntary unless THEY claim otherwise.

You seem to be arguing this issue with a perspective that drugs and drug use does no harm, especially no harm to others.

Absolutely not. But "harm" to an individual who volunteers to take that harm is an issue of ETHICS, not MORALITY. The harm may be "bad" but it is not "wrong" and should certainly not be a "felony". Boxers and hockey players and other full contact sports players get harmed for "fun and profit" all the time. Do you want to prohibit those activities too?

Kite, I am pretty durn sure that you are not a drug user, why not?

Actually, I have a bad back and use various codeine derivities (hydrocodone, oxycodone) as needed. If I ever OVER use them and cause harm to another involuntarily, I fully expect to be held accountable. Why am I special? Well, because I can afford a doctor or three. Why can't others do this too, even if they CAN'T afford a doctor or three?

[ladajo]

Kite,
The problem I see in all this, as stated many times, is how much involuntary damage is society willing to accept by drug users before society takes action against them?
I personally do not care so much if an individual sits in a room and fries their brain. I do think that the other individual that provided them the means needs to be regulated. The things they are playing with are just too dangerous. The problem in all that is that the users normally do not want to stay in a room and impact only themselves. They get wasted, and then do stupid things. And the more often they get wasted, the more likely the are to be irrational when not wasted. That is the rub.

I am certainly not tolerant to someone else imposing risk other others involuntarily. If I see it coming I am going to try and prevent it.
In no way shape or form can drug users garauntee that they are going to use and not impose risk on others against the other's will. Drugs are not lemonade. They create real potentially dramatic changes in cognition. The first and foremost being a degradation of judgment. The funny thing is, the impact on judgement can and does for many continue when they are not using. Lemonade does not do that.

Comparing boxing between two consenting adults and drug use is just plain silly. You are better than that. But if you insist, you should also note that great effor tis made to regulate the boxing activity, via training, rules, judges, referees, medical professionals on site, etc. Do drug users have all that? Do they want it?

[Diogenes]

You misunderstand my point. I am talking about how you think it should be handled by our government. If you feel it should be prohibited, then you are advocating something on the one hand of which you disapprove on the other hand.

Should the white slave trade be prohibited? In other words, does Prohibition "work" in this case?

Oh, I understood your "point". You missed mine. The government should protect the right of individuals (sapient beings) to act voluntarily. Thus, the trading of a slave (INVOLUNTARY servitude) violates the right of the "item" being traded. Protect the item being traded (the sapient being who is being violated).

On the other hand, hard drugs have no right to voluntary action. The traders DO. The government should protect their right to VOLUNTARY action. Certainly, the government should not VIOLATE their right.

Very simple.

Again, you are dodging the question. Let me ask it differently.

What do you think the government should do regarding the *White Slave trade? Should they prohibit it?



* It occurred to me based on your last response that you may not have understood that the term "white slave trade" is not intended to be taken ethnically. It has always been used to convey the meaning of smuggling women to work as prostitutes, regardless of their race/color.

[GIThruster]

I have a bad back and use various codeine derivities (hydrocodone, oxycodone) as needed. If I ever OVER use them and cause harm to another involuntarily, I fully expect to be held accountable. Why am I special? Well, because I can afford a doctor or three. Why can't others do this too, even if they CAN'T afford a doctor or three?

A doctor or three? How many scripts do you have for how many pain killers?

It's not an out-of-place question to wonder if we're arguing the merits of drug addiction with a drug addict, and I've never heard of a doctor prescribing more than a single pain killer.

[KitemanSA]

Again, you are dodging the question.

Buffalo muffins. I answered your infantile attempt at a verbal trap accurately and specifically. Just because I did not use the ridiculous wording you wanted me to does not mean I did not answer it.

Let me ask it differently.

What do you think the government should do regarding the *White Slave trade? Should they prohibit it?

One more time, regarding the "White Slave Trade", the government should protect the right of the individual to voluntary action. If it does that, it by necessity eliminates the trading of slaves. No slaves, no slave trade. It does not "prohibit" the trading of servitude, just eliminates INVOLUNTARY servitude.

Is your mental accuity sufficient to comprehend those relatively simple concepts?

Are you truly this prejudice? Does the "White" slave trade concern you more than the "Black" or "Brown" or "Yellow" slave trade? Are you that much of a disgusting example of humanity?

Why do I call it "infantile"? Because you obviously are trying to draw a parallel between "drug" trade and "White slave" trade, as if "drugs" and "people" were somehow equal. Ridiculous. Stupid. Infantile.

Now watch someone jump in with "Heroin is known as 'White Slave' in Timbuktu" or some such innanity. Infantile.

[KitemanSA]

I have a bad back and use various codeine derivities (hydrocodone, oxycodone) as needed. If I ever OVER use them and cause harm to another involuntarily, I fully expect to be held accountable. Why am I special? Well, because I can afford a doctor or three. Why can't others do this too, even if they CAN'T afford a doctor or three?

A doctor or three? How many scripts do you have for how many pain killers?

Three doctors, one prescription.
Dr T, a back specialist diagnosed and prescribed.
Dr. A, my GP/cardiologist re-upped after it ran out.
Dr. ?, the emergency room doctor, gave me 10 of a different more potent med when I showed up in the ER, due apparently to not taking enough of the less potent med!

It's not an out-of-place question to wonder if we're arguing the merits of drug addiction with a drug addict, and I've never heard of a doctor prescribing more than a single pain killer.

My opposition to the drug war FAR precedes my back injury and occasional usage of said pain killers. I've been opposed to the idiocy of drug prohibition since... high school I guess (40ish years ago?). My back injury is less than a decade old and usually kept in check by chiropracty.

I don't indulge in any illegal intoxicants because I have sworn as a condition of my job that I would not do so. My word is my bond. This is a voluntary condition. If my job condition were to permit use of such intoxicants, I suspect I would still not use the addictive type for intoxicative purposes because I am a bit scared of them.

[GIThruster]

Sorry to hear about your back. Have you ever investigated the laser treatment that Anthony Hopkins had? He had crippling pain and after some very non-invasive high-tech surgery, found all the pain gone and in fact, was able to film The Mask of Zorro afterward. That was 15 years ago so I'd imagine that technique has had a lot more study and refinement.

[Diogenes]

Again, you are dodging the question.

Buffalo muffins. I answered your infantile attempt at a verbal trap accurately and specifically. Just because I did not use the ridiculous wording you wanted me to does not mean I did not answer it.

The fact that you recognize it as a trap means that you recognize that your beliefs are contradictory. It is not a trap for me, because I fully believe the White Slave Trade should be "prohibited."

You, on the other hand, because you have made such an argument that "Prohibition" doesn't work, and therefore we should not use it, you cannot now admit the obvious, that it should indeed be used to interdict the White Slave Trade.

You are being intellectually dishonest, and everyone can see through it. You must pick either Consistency, (Prohibition is ALWAYS WRONG) or Hypocrisy. (Prohibition is Wrong for THIS, but Right for THAT.) That is the trap you find yourself in.

Let me ask it differently.

What do you think the government should do regarding the *White Slave trade? Should they prohibit it?

One more time, regarding the "White Slave Trade", the government should protect the right of the individual to voluntary action. If it does that, it by necessity eliminates the trading of slaves. No slaves, no slave trade. It does not "prohibit" the trading of servitude, just eliminates INVOLUNTARY servitude.

And how do you accomplish this? With the Same "Jack booted thugs" you disdained earlier? No doubt the Slave Traders would object to the use of those "Jack booted thugs" to prohibit their activity.

Is your mental accuity sufficient to comprehend those relatively simple concepts?.

I comprehend that you are on the horns of a dilemma, and trying to brazen your way off of them. Again, your choice is Consistency or Hypocrisy.

Are you truly this prejudice? Does the "White" slave trade concern you more than the "Black" or "Brown" or "Yellow" slave trade? Are you that much of a disgusting example of humanity?

I'm sorry, but you are having difficulty understanding this term.Let me once again direct you to this website. In way of further explanation, the term "White Slave Trade" came about as a result of a Movie from the 1930s depicting the trafficking of women for sex slaves. The name of the movie was " Weiße Sklaven", or "White Slaves" in English. It is NOT related to ethnicity.

Why do I call it "infantile"? Because you obviously are trying to draw a parallel between "drug" trade and "White slave" trade, as if "drugs" and "people" were somehow equal. Ridiculous. Stupid. Infantile.

No I am not. I am trying to force you to acknowledge that the government should PROHIBIT certain things, and should use INTERDICTION to enforce the PROHIBITION. It doesn't matter to me what is being PROHIBITED, whether it be Atomic Bombs, Ivory, Blood Diamonds, White Slavery, or whatever. What matters to me is getting YOU to acknowledge that "PROHIBITION" is some times the right thing to do.

Now watch someone jump in with "Heroin is known as 'White Slave' in Timbuktu" or some such innanity. Infantile.

The inanity is suggesting that "PROHIBITION" is a completely unworkable idea for drugs, but perfectly acceptable for things of which YOU disprove.

Again, you can either be consistent, or you can be a hypocrite.

[ladajo]

So, to further the discussion, here is what happens today when you give essentially open access to hard drugs:

Some state officials estimate more than 50 percent of the population between 18 and 35 are using drugs illegally - including anything from heroin to abusing prescription drugs.

"When I take it I feel like I am wandering in heaven. I feel like a king of the whole world." Singh said.

"I stopped recognizing even my parents," he said.

"It can be bought anytime from anywhere," he said. "20 to 25 families would be selling it in one village alone."

The cost: the equivalent of about $20 for five grams.

The U.N. says it is hard to get accurate statistics on drug use in India. But if those numbers are anywhere near true, it far exceeds the U.N.'s estimation of global illicit substance abuse for the 15-64 age range, which is 4.8 percent.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/08/world ... ?hpt=hp_c2

[GIThruster]

You don't need to do a scientific study if you have any experience in the drug culture.

I did drugs and was thoroughly a part of the drug culture from age 12 to age 18. I can tell you true--all drug users lie as a constant part of life. They lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, malign, ignore, mailase, shlep, shuffle, ignore, defy, drivel, deceive, discard, disavow, disgust, corrupt, and urge all others to do all the same. that's what we're seeing here with the disgusting arguments to promote drugs.

Drug users are the plague of this world, and all deserve to be in prison so the rest of humanity can live as authentic beings, not dragged down by egocentric assholes.

All drug users go to jail, to rot and die. Here, here!!!

[CKay]

I can tell you true--all drug users lie as a constant part of life.

I can tell you that all people lie as a constant part of life.

They lie, cheat, steal, corrupt, malign, ignore, mailase, shlep, shuffle, ignore, defy, drivel, deceive, discard, disavow, disgust, corrupt, and urge all others to do all the same.

I've known a few drug users and many non drug users who do some, but not all of those. But most drug users I know are the polar opposite. If anything they're more tolerant, easy going, open minded, reasonable, sociable, generous, funny, and generally better company all round.

Drug users are the plague of this world,

Oh right, I thought it was the intolerant, sanctimonious, puritanical busy bodies who believe they have a god given right to dictate how everyone else ought to lead their lives who were the plague of this world?

all deserve to be in prison so the rest of humanity can live as authentic beings, not dragged down by egocentric assholes. All drug users go to jail, to rot and die. Here, here!!!

Now wipe all the spittle from your computer screen.

[KitemanSA]

* It occurred to me based on your last response that you may not have understood that the term "white slave trade" is not intended to be taken ethnically. It has always been used to convey the meaning of smuggling women to work as prostitutes, regardless of their race/color.

You and I have different definitions for "white slave trade", though the fact that the "lusts" of the buyer are usually involved seems common. Buying a causcasian boy or girl for your hareem is "white slave trade".
As to your ambi-color prostitution related activity, the current phrase is "Trafficking in Persons" and I have to take a class on an annual basis that warns against the inadvertant support of it.

So, your point if different than I already responded to?

[KitemanSA]

Sorry to hear about your back. Have you ever investigated the laser treatment that Anthony Hopkins had? He had crippling pain and after some very non-invasive high-tech surgery, found all the pain gone and in fact, was able to film The Mask of Zorro afterward. That was 15 years ago so I'd imagine that technique has had a lot more study and refinement.

Thank you for your concern.

So far (though it recently may have changed) my physical condition did not warrent an surgical intervention of any kind. It was mainly musculature related (smasms, for which I also was prescribed Flexeril).

The ER doc suggested I go to the "Spine Center" so I figure I will do so sometime soon.