Somebody Is Paying The Medical Bill

[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.

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."

Please note I stated "infantile ATTEMPT at a trap". But it is only a trap if you believe that people and drugs are the same. I avoided your attempt to drag me into such silliness.

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.

Jeez, are you REALLY that dense?
Prohibition of a voluntary action does not work. Voluntary action is naturally right. Trying to prohibit it is akin to trying to prohibit heavy objects from falling down if you drop them. Doesn't matter how many laws you make or how much money you spend prosecuting folks who drop things and have them fall down, but there it is, they will still fall and your prohibition won't work.
Slavery is not a voluntary action. The government need not "prohibit" it, it must only prevent itself from LEGALIZING it as it had in the US Constitution until the 13th amendment. If it is not made "legal" by the abuse of government, then the act of protecting the individual right to voluntary action sufficies and no "prohibition" is required.

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.

Perhaps you ARE that dense. This tripe would suggest 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.

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.

Let me propose a deal. If you will allow me to use said "thugs" any time the item being traded in a "white slave trade" complains against being involved. I will support your use of said "thugs" whenever the item being traded in a "drug trade" complains about being involved.

Does that make it clear enough EVEN FOR YOU?

I have never said that police, and courts, etc. have no place in society, but their only RIGHTEOUS place is to protect the individual right to voluntary action. (Read any of my recent discussions of "Default Social Contract" for a suggested effective process for attaining this end.

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.

No dilemma here dude. An appearant inability to differentiate at your end.

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.

We do have a different definition for the term, as I have covered in my prior post.

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.

I have yet to see any voluntary action that the government should be involved with in ANY way, let alone "Prohibiting".

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

Again, you can either be rational and distinguish between "voluntary" and "INvoluntary" interactions, understanding that they should be treated differently, or you can be "irrational" and equate "people" and "drugs" saying they should be treated the same.

[GIThruster]

I have yet to see any voluntary action that the government should be involved with in ANY way, let alone "Prohibiting".

That's because you're a MORON.

Anyone with a clue understands that you'll argue, stamp your little foot and act like a degenerate till the frogs fly from the sky.

You're a MORON.

[KitemanSA]

So, to further the discussion, here is what happens today when you give essentially open access to hard drugs:
Yada
Yada
Yada
about India.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/08/world ... ?hpt=hp_c2

Maybe if they spent as much time and energy making life less of a hell hole over there, they incidense of drug use would go down.

Also, I wonder how much of this is becasue folks have found out they can make a year's wages in a few days this way? If it were legal, would the fiscal incentive to deal go down enough to reduce the rate of introduction?

Finally, please note that much of the drugs are coming in "illegally" from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Might those countries (Muslim) be intentionally incentivizing the usage in India (non-Muslim) for nefarious purposes?

[KitemanSA]

I have yet to see any voluntary action that the government should be involved with in ANY way, let alone "Prohibiting".

That's because you're a MORON.

Anyone with a clue understands that you'll argue, stamp your little foot and act like a degenerate till the frogs fly from the sky.

You're a MORON.

Are you a split personallity?

First you are all concerned about my health, then this.

Perhaps you need some meds yourself?

[KitemanSA]

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.

Sounds like thieves, robbers, and many other folks who live on the illegal side. Of couse, that might just be the result of the "illegal" nature of their activities.

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.

I have known a number of drug users, and they were more ... sad than anything else. You sound like you really hate yourself. I'd get that resolved were I you.

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

Mormon are you? No Coka Cola? No coffee or tea? No alcohol? Maybe that is your problem. You are off your meds.

[Diogenes]

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."

Please note I stated "infantile ATTEMPT at a trap". But it is only a trap if you believe that people and drugs are the same. I avoided your attempt to drag me into such silliness.

So you are still trying to shield yourself with that dodge? (That you won't answer the question because "people" have rights and drugs don't.)

Fine, I'll take away your toy shield. I'll rephrase the question.

Do you think Ivory should be prohibited? (We're not talking about people now, so you can answer the question without dodging it.)

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.

Jeez, are you REALLY that dense?
Prohibition of a voluntary action does not work. Voluntary action is naturally right. Trying to prohibit it is akin to trying to prohibit heavy objects from falling down if you drop them. Doesn't matter how many laws you make or how much money you spend prosecuting folks who drop things and have them fall down, but there it is, they will still fall and your prohibition won't work.
Slavery is not a voluntary action. The government need not "prohibit" it, it must only prevent itself from LEGALIZING it as it had in the US Constitution until the 13th amendment. If it is not made "legal" by the abuse of government, then the act of protecting the individual right to voluntary action sufficies and no "prohibition" is required.

See, you're still on this kick. I don't give a CRAP about the particulars of any contraband product, my SOLE focus is whether or not you support PROHIBITION under the right circumstances. I'm not going to talk about the white slave trade anymore because you won't get off your irrelevant response. We're talking about IVORY now. Should the government PROHIBIT the legal sale of IVORY?

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.

Perhaps you ARE that dense. This tripe would suggest 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.

Let me propose a deal. If you will allow me to use said "thugs" any time the item being traded in a "white slave trade" complains against being involved. I will support your use of said "thugs" whenever the item being traded in a "drug trade" complains about being involved.

Does that make it clear enough EVEN FOR YOU?

Oh, yes, it is very clear that you are refusing to answer the question as long as you can find an excuse to dodge it.

How about we remove your persistent (and irrelevant) objection? Let us cease discussing a contraband product which possesses rights.

I don't want to discuss any product for which you can invoke an excuse to dodge the question. (The question being, Should the Government use PROHIBITION on anything?)

Let us now put the question to the illegal Ivory trade. Should the government Prohibit it?

I have never said that police, and courts, etc. have no place in society, but their only RIGHTEOUS place is to protect the individual right to voluntary action. (Read any of my recent discussions of "Default Social Contract" for a suggested effective process for attaining this end.

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.

No dilemma here dude. An appearant inability to differentiate at your end.

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.

We do have a different definition for the term, as I have covered in my prior post.

Dude, we aren't allowed to make up our own definitions. I am using the definition for the term as is used in the common vernacular and as defined by the Anti-Slavery society. But I am no longer interested in discussing the sex slave trade because you keep using the particulars of it as an excuse to side track the issue into commentary about human rights, rather than simply answer the only question I am interested in. Should the government PROHIBIT certain things?

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.

I have yet to see any voluntary action that the government should be involved with in ANY way, let alone "Prohibiting".

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

Again, you can either be rational and distinguish between "voluntary" and "INvoluntary" interactions, understanding that they should be treated differently, or you can be "irrational" and equate "people" and "drugs" saying they should be treated the same.

I have no interest in distinguishing between one and the other because it is completely irrelevant to *MY* point. Because you cannot get off expounding on how the one thing is not like the other, i've chosen to choose a different banned trade so as to deprive you of the side issue of "human rights".


Should the United States government prohibit the importation of Ivory?

[KitemanSA]

Do you think Ivory should be prohibited? (We're not talking about people now, so you can answer the question without dodging it.)

No more so than cow hide or pig bristle, i.e., no. What I do think is that the herds of elephants should be properly owned and maintained by individuals or partnerships and that anyone trading poached ivory should be treated as any other thief or fence.

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.

Jeez, are you REALLY that dense?
Prohibition of a voluntary action does not work. Voluntary action is naturally right. Trying to prohibit it is akin to trying to prohibit heavy objects from falling down if you drop them. Doesn't matter how many laws you make or how much money you spend prosecuting folks who drop things and have them fall down, but there it is, they will still fall and your prohibition won't work.
Slavery is not a voluntary action. The government need not "prohibit" it, it must only prevent itself from LEGALIZING it as it had in the US Constitution until the 13th amendment. If it is not made "legal" by the abuse of government, then the act of protecting the individual right to voluntary action sufficies and no "prohibition" is required.

See, you're still on this kick. I don't give a CRAP about the particulars of any contraband product, my SOLE focus is whether or not you support PROHIBITION under the right circumstances. I'm not going to talk about the white slave trade anymore because you won't get off your irrelevant response. We're talking about IVORY now. Should the government PROHIBIT the legal sale of IVORY?

Prohibit the LEGAL sale of ivory? Are you MAD?

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.

Let me propose a deal. If you will allow me to use said "thugs" any time the item being traded in a "white slave trade" complains against being involved. I will support your use of said "thugs" whenever the item being traded in a "drug trade" complains about being involved.

Does that make it clear enough EVEN FOR YOU?

Oh, yes, it is very clear that you are refusing to answer the question as long as you can find an excuse to dodge it.

But I have answered your question EVERY time you have asked. You just seem incapable of understanding the plain and simple answer.

How about we remove your persistent (and irrelevant) objection? Let us cease discussing a contraband product which possesses rights.

I don't want to discuss any product for which you can invoke an excuse to dodge the question. (The question being, Should the Government use PROHIBITION on anything?)

I have yet to see ANY voluntary interaction that the government should "prohibit". I don't care what the voluntary trade is, or the voluntary "any other activity". The government should PROTECT the right to voluntary interaction, NOT prohibit it.

And I have answered it AGAIN. Can you understand THAT answer?

Let us now put the question to the illegal Ivory trade. Should the government Prohibit it?

Answered that above. Won't repeat.

I have never said that police, and courts, etc. have no place in society, but their only RIGHTEOUS place is to protect the individual right to voluntary action. (Read any of my recent discussions of "Default Social Contract" for a suggested effective process for attaining this end.

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.

No dilemma here dude. An appearant inability to differentiate at your end.

I'm sorry, but you are having difficulty understanding this term.

We do have a different definition for the term, as I have covered in my prior post.

Dude, we aren't allowed to make up our own definitions. I am using the definition for the term as is used in the common vernacular and as defined by the Anti-Slavery society. But I am no longer interested in discussing the sex slave trade because you keep using the particulars of it as an excuse to side track the issue into commentary about human rights, rather than simply answer the only question I am interested in. Should the government PROHIBIT certain things?

And I keep answering plainly that the government should not attempt to prohibit voluntary activites but should PROTECT the right of individuals to voluntary interaction.

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.

I have yet to see any voluntary action that the government should be involved with in ANY way, let alone "Prohibiting".

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

Again, you can either be rational and distinguish between "voluntary" and "INvoluntary" interactions, understanding that they should be treated differently, or you can be "irrational" and equate "people" and "drugs" saying they should be treated the same.

I have no interest in distinguishing between one and the other

And this is the basis of your appearant insanity. People ARE different from drugs. Learn that.

because it is completely irrelevant to *MY* point. Because you cannot get off expounding on how the one thing is not like the other, i've chosen to choose a different banned trade so as to deprive you of the side issue of "human rights".

Human rights is ALL THERE IS!!! There is NO righteous purpose for government OTHER than to protect human rights. None. Zip. Nada.

Should the United States government prohibit the importation of Ivory?

No.

Should it attempt to catch and prosecute thieves who have poached ivory from herds not their own? Yes. That is theft, that is wrong. That should be prosecuted. But the fact that it is IVORY is no different than the fact that it is gold, or oil, or heroin, or...

Do you get it now?

[CKay]

Playing devil's advocate - should the sale of high purity uranium 235 between any two free individuals be prohibited or allowed as "voluntary activity"?

[MSimon]

I have yet to see any voluntary action that the government should be involved with in ANY way, let alone "Prohibiting".

That's because you're a MORON.

Anyone with a clue understands that you'll argue, stamp your little foot and act like a degenerate till the frogs fly from the sky.

You're a MORON.

OK. Let us say government made defecating illegal because of the smell, the mess, and the cost of clean up.

Let us leave aside the legality of such a law. Could it be enforced? Can you stop people from sh*tting?

OK. How about eating? Smoking? Sleeping? Walking? Working? Resting?

How about suicide? Can we pass a law to stop a person from harming themselves? Does that include piercings and tattoos?

How about if they don't eat enough Vitamin C and get scurvy? Can you enforce such a law? Suppose we set a limit on vitamin C consumption at 100 mg a day (well above the MDR) but I need 200 mg a day? Or I'm sick and need 20 g a day?

Now what do we do for people who have a cannabinoid deficiency? How about endorphin shortages? No such animals? Well in fact there are. Mice have been bread for cannabinoid deficiency. It couldn't happen to humans?

And endorphin deficiency? We normally call that "being in pain".

====

Now medical science is as of yet not all knowing. People with fibromyalgia were at one time thought to be junkies due to their craving for pain relief. Then we found the cause and they no longer have to fear the wrath of government. Think of it: 20 years for a disease.

Now what is to say that the rest of drug use will not be explained away by a medical condition currently unrecognized?

Do you still want to persecute people for "harming" themselves when in fact they may just be self treating something the medical profession does not yet understand? We already know that PTSD explains on the order of 30% of drug use. What is to say something else(s) is not responsible for the rest?

For those of you who are believers? Is the Head Office going to give your persecutions of the innocent a pass because of your ignorance of the facts?

=====

Does it really make sense to persecute the victim of a crime? i.e. you partook of illegal drugs. You are now a victim of said drugs. You need to be punished to deter further crimes against the victim - yourself.

I'm probably a victim of my bad eating habits. Should the government force me to eat right? It might make sense if they provided the food. Free food for a healthy people. - I liked it better in the original German.

=====

Once you give the government such power the government owns you. If we can have Drug Police can Food Police be far behind? What what part of your person exactly can government not regulate?

Well if it is for your own good they can do anything. You are cattle and the Government is your herder. And for those who like to stampede? The abattoir. Well we are kinder and gentler than that. Twenty years to life should do.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Clive Staples "CS" Lewis

[MSimon]

Playing devil's advocate - should the sale of high purity uranium 235 between any two free individuals be prohibited or allowed as "voluntary activity"?

How exactly do you intend to stop it? I know. I KNOW!

We put radiation detectors everywhere. And minders for everyone. And minders for the minders. And Minders for the minder minders. etc.

As I see it our real problem is a shortage of police. Uncorrupted police.

http://dunwalke.com/3_RJR_Nabisco.htm

How about uncorrupted government officials?

http://dunwalke.com/7_HUD_is_a_Sewer.htm

But I get it. As long as the government promises to fight the Drug Menace they can be as corrupt as they want to be. And they don't have to fight the Menace very hard. A simple show of effort while letting 90% of the drugs get delivered is more than good enough for the rubes.

I remember a dug bust in LA a decade or two ago that got 20 tons of coke off the street. How much did cocaine prices in LA change due to the bust? As far as anyone can tell the price did not go up by even $1. As far as anyone can tell the price did not go up at all. Supplies were sufficient to meet demand even with 20 tons missing from the supply.

Currently Federal, State, and Local efforts to stem the drug trade are costing the US at least $50 bn a year. Maybe much more if all the hidden costs are accounted for.

Who is for spending the $1/2 trillion or $1 trillion a year required to make a serious dent in the trade? Surely that would drive up prices. And what do higher prices do? Attract more sellers to the market. Whoops.

Maybe Newt was right. Death for 2 oz of pot. Unfortunately his time has passed. About 50% favor pot legalization. And the trend is not in his favor. So that will be a very hard sell. I say give it a shot. Maybe you can unconvince a lot of people about legalization. Three states will have it on the ballot this fall: Wash., Colorado, and Mass. There was only 1 State in 2010. Calif. And as far as I can tell these drug fiends intend to keep coming back until they win all 50 states. I'd say time was on their side.

[MSimon]

I would not limit it to just crime. The increasing dysfunction of drug users...

Might we not be confusing the dysfunction of drug users with the underlying cause of at least a significant part of drug use? PTSD.

The dysfunctional drug user sounds a lot like the dysfunctional PTSD victim. Similar symptoms. Lassitude. Lack of ambition. etc.

No studies I'm aware of have ever tried to separate the two. Pity. Because we have known about the PTSD/drug use connection for at least 20 years in modern times and in fact the knowledge goes back to the US Civil War where the drug of choice was alcohol.

[MSimon]

And then there is Portugal:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

It looks to me like we could cut our "drug" problem in half by legalization.

[MSimon]

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

And those are not prosecutable offenses?

But OK. About 85% of our drug problems in America come from alcohol users violating the rights of others. But you obviously can't go after them for that. Violence, murder, child abuse, auto collisions, etc. And besides. Alcohol is the only known criminogenic drug. It is the only drug statistically associated with violence.

I know how to fix all that.

Ban alcohol.

If you will start working HARD for an alcohol ban I will give up my opposition to drug prohibition (in this forum at least). Why would I do that? By working hard for alcohol prohibition you would appear foolish and make my case better than I ever could.

By not working for alcohol prohibition you also make my case. The horns of a dilemma. Heh?

====

Had the prohibitionists stuck with drugs used by few (heroin, cocaine, LSD, etc.) prohibition could probably run forever. Unfortunately your prohibitionist friends also picked on a drug in 1937 that was destined to be taken up (for various lengths of time) by around 50% of the population. Unlucky for them. Unlucky for prohibition. It will all be scrutinized now. First to go will be the pot laws.

====

Here are some folks that took the police out of the equation and reduced drug use to boot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

====

Addiction is a medical problem. How can police solve a medical problem? Should we take doctors off heart disease and put the police on it?

====

Legalization is coming. It will be on the ballot in Wash., Colorado, and Mass. this fall. It will be interesting to see how those proposition do. Plenty of prohibition orgs will be signing up to fight it.

Perhaps you could contact the guy mentioned in this article and send him some money. For the cause.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/excl ... -on-drugs/

====

The evidence for Drug Prohibition is as good as the evidence for CAGW. And it appears to be supported by the same class of rent seekers.

From the above link:

Of course, police unions aren’t the only interest group with a stake in maintaining broken drug laws. The beer industry, alcohol corporations, and prison guard unions also contributed money to help Lovell stop Prop 19. Howard Wooldridge, a retired police officer who now helps push for legalization as a citizen advocate, told Republic Report that drug company lobbyists also fight to keep marijuana illegal because they view pot as a low-cost form of competition.

====

And you might want to do something about the 85% of Americans who say prohibition is not working. It is the reservoir I draw from.

Those of you who say it is working are part of a rather small minority.

I must say that the fight against prohibition was a LOT more fun when the odds were much more against me. I consider what I do now just a mopping up operation. Necessary. But not near as much fun as a fight against all odds.

====

There are TWO grow-op stores in my town of 150,000. There are not enough orchid growers in my town to support one store let alone two.

Prohibition is a farce and police have not been prosecuting it to the max for at least 20 years - such policing causes too much violence. And citizens don't like that.

The murders in Mexico aren't helping. Perhaps you could ask your friends in the trade to tone it down. It is helping to derail what was once a very good thing. According to you.

====

Another thing I'd like to see is equal enforcement. Whites should be policed as heavily as Blacks. Whites won't stand for it - as explained by this police officer in minutes 1 thru 3 of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmgeCeGk--I

And the War will be over. All that is keeping it running now is the venality of the participants. (see the bit about the lobbyist above).

I call for an end to Racist Enforcement of the laws. That sort of thing is IMO unAmerican.

====

BTW none of my prohibitionist friends have mentioned the corruption of the Drug War as part of the price.

http://dunwalke.com/3_RJR_Nabisco.htm

That appears to be another cost you are willing to live with. Now why you would want a system that enforces and encourages corruption is beyond me. But there you have it. Back to the USSR? OK.

Sauve qui peut.

We will be taking lessons from Argentina on good governance before long. And not just unofficially as it is done now. First world power and third world governance. A very potent combination.

[MSimon]

They are using Drug Prohibition to Steal Us Blind:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/03/corr ... overnment/

[Diogenes]

Prohibit the LEGAL sale of ivory? Are you MAD?

Your behavior reminds me of that of Thornton Melon (played by Rodney Dangerfield) in the movie "Back to School" when the Dean of the Business school was trying to discuss the necessary steps to set up a manufacturing business. Thornton Melon could not comprehend the concept of a "generic", and insisted on discussing a specific. Finally, to shut him up, Dr. Phillip Barbay said they would manufacture "Widgets."





I wish I could say "widgets" to you, but alas it is not so simple. It must of necessity be a contraband material of which YOU disapprove. Again, the particular material is of no import to the question, what is important is for you to be against it, and therefore require the government to interdict it.

But I have answered your question EVERY time you have asked. You just seem incapable of understanding the plain and simple answer.

How about trying just a simple "Yes" or "No?"

Answered that above. Won't repeat.

No, you went into a diatribe about the civil rights of the contraband product. Without saying that you agree that it should be PROHIBITED by our government.

And I keep answering plainly that the government should not attempt to prohibit voluntary activites but should PROTECT the right of individuals to voluntary interaction.

Which is a round about way of saying you believe in, and accept Prohibition, but without ACTUALLY saying you believe in and accept Prohibition.

This is very much like that old joke about the woman who would sleep with a man for a million bucks, but wouldn't do it for five, because she's "not that kind of woman." The man's response is:

"We've already established what kind of woman you are, now we are just negotiating over the price."

And this is the basis of your appearant insanity. People ARE different from drugs. Learn that.

And that fact has no salient relevance to the point, which is that you conceptually ACCEPT Prohibition when you agree with it, and you REJECT Prohibition when you disagree with it.


I accept Prohibition as an occasional duty of Nations, and regard it as a normal and necessary tool of civilization. Israel prohibits the transfer of arms to Gaza, as would any SANE nation. All arguments against the Concept of Prohibition are intellectually dishonest.

Human rights is ALL THERE IS!!! There is NO righteous purpose for government OTHER than to protect human rights. None. Zip. Nada.

And this theory presupposes that there is a universal standard of morality which is obvious and objective and in which everyone agrees with you. To say that history is replete with examples where your own personal morality is not the standard, is an understatement. Concern over "Human Rights" is a relatively recent phenomena in the History of Human Government.

No.

Should it attempt to catch and prosecute thieves who have poached ivory from herds not their own? Yes. That is theft, that is wrong. That should be prosecuted. But the fact that it is IVORY is no different than the fact that it is gold, or oil, or heroin, or...

Do you get it now?

I get that you are in favor of Jack booted thugs, providing they serves a purpose of which you approve. I get that this is a specific endorsement of the tactic of prohibition as long as the goal is something you agree with.

Everyone is pretty much in this boat. Conceptually, prohibition is a necessity, and cannot be rejected out of hand simply because it is not 100% effective. Nothing is 100% effective in the short term.