2010:warmest year ever since records began

[KitemanSA]

You could start by using words the same way the rest of us do. That would aid communication. Another would be not to consider us all stupid.

Like thinking "criminal" does not mean "breaking the law." And calling positions of disagreement "simple and obvious stuff."

Actually, loath as I am to defend him, Diogenes DOES define "crime" as "break the law". It is I who realizes that this is a recent perversion of the language by lawyers.

When was the last time you heard someone distinguish between "crime" and "vice"? They are both illegal (against the law), but a vice is NOT a crime. Think about it. Crime is when you involve someone in an action involuntarily (act immorally to another). Vice is when you do something that may be bad for YOURSELF (act unethically to yourself). Failure to distinguish those simple concepts is the lawyer's bread and butter!

You are presuming that one person's vice is another person's vice, when in fact it is another person's crime.

You either willfully remain ignorant, or you are just too stupid to get it.

One last and final time.

It is not the specifics of the act per-se that makes an act a vice or a crime. It is the character. Vice is what hurts oneself. Crime is what involves others involuntarily. Name it what you will, thems the facts.

You can describe any specific ACT and it can be a crime or not depending on whether the act involves another involuntarily.

Live with it or ignore it. No skin off my nose. But I do not volunteer to be involved in your criminal acts toward drug uses. Any attempt on your part to involve me shall be taken as permission to respond in such manner as I deem necessary to prevent it.

Have a nice life.

[MSimon]

Them Islamics have it right. Drinking alcohol is not a vice. It is a crime against nature and Nature's God. All right thinking Americans know this. Which is why we need to return to those halcyon days of Alcohol Prohibition.

In God's Law (which has been perverted by man) vice is a crime. We go against God's law only at our own peril.

As soon as we find out which is the right God and whose book it should be interpreted by we can fix this problem for once and for all. I can't wait for that glorious day. I propose a return to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

If every one was forced to believe the right way this would be easy to fix. There is nothing like armed religion to fix the ills of the world. We need to stamp out all illegal faiths. Then we will have a truly moral world with truly moral people. Saudi Arabia should be our guiding light. At least in terms of organization.

/sarc

[MSimon]

Thalidomide helps some people with some conditions. It is contraindicated for some other people. So we should ban it for all. Because if some are hurt, no one should be helped.

Even if strong stimulants help some they should be banned for all. And for sure forget that self medication bunk. Aspirin kills about 1,000 (numbers vary - that is a ball park) people a year in the US. Isn't that too high a price to pay just so some people can get headache relief without having to see a member of the medical cartel?

/more sarc - what is it about my current mood?

[Betruger]

A bottle of aspirin. There's just no way people could predict the dangers waiting inside such innocuous little thing, till it was too late. No way at all!


Coming up next, rogue NASA engineers ignore the laws of physics!

[MSimon]

A bottle of aspirin. There's just no way people could predict the dangers waiting inside such innocuous little thing, till it was too late. No way at all!

Coming up next, rogue NASA engineers ignore the laws of physics!

Like everything in life there are risks vs rewards. The question is: who decides what the optimum is? Some fool in a far away place who decrees that everyone will conform to the average? Or are individuals going to be allowed self determination?

Suppose you break your leg and need opiates. Will some fool declare that everyone only be allowed the average dose (averaged among the whole population or just those in pain?) or can the dose be adjusted up for those in more severe pain?

Or how about if your pain is chronic? Because the brain makes more opiate receptors if the current ones are filled the requirements for pain meds for chronic pain rise over time. Does the bureaucrat understand this? Do the idiots who make the law know this? Did they know it when they made the law? (Probably not) Can the law be easily changed to conform to new knowledge? (Probably not)

The difficulty with control from afar is the knowledge problem. The man in the distant place simply can't account for 100,000 decisions made on 100,000 different criteria.

[Diogenes]

Them Islamics have it right. Drinking alcohol is not a vice. It is a crime against nature and Nature's God. All right thinking Americans know this. Which is why we need to return to those halcyon days of Alcohol Prohibition.

In God's Law (which has been perverted by man) vice is a crime. We go against God's law only at our own peril.

As soon as we find out which is the right God and whose book it should be interpreted by we can fix this problem for once and for all. I can't wait for that glorious day. I propose a return to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

If every one was forced to believe the right way this would be easy to fix. There is nothing like armed religion to fix the ills of the world. We need to stamp out all illegal faiths. Then we will have a truly moral world with truly moral people. Saudi Arabia should be our guiding light. At least in terms of organization.

/sarc

You should number your various formula arguments. Then you could just tell us the number and save us the trouble of having to read it to find out there's nothing new in it, Just the same fallacies and false equivalencies it had the last time we looked at it.

I guess it's new to people who hadn't seen it before, and I'm sure that's your target audience: Guppies.

[Diogenes]

Thalidomide helps some people with some conditions. It is contraindicated for some other people. So we should ban it for all. Because if some are hurt, no one should be helped.

Even if strong stimulants help some they should be banned for all. And for sure forget that self medication bunk. Aspirin kills about 1,000 (numbers vary - that is a ball park) people a year in the US. Isn't that too high a price to pay just so some people can get headache relief without having to see a member of the medical cartel?

/more sarc - what is it about my current mood?

This is the kind of childish crap that degrades any attempt at real debate. We are discussing whether the Legal system should allow people to have unfettered access to addictive Narcotics, and you attempt to equate that discussion to the prohibiting of Medicines for Medical purpose.

I consider this behavior to be dishonest. Do you want to win your argument so badly that you stoop to this?

[Diogenes]

A bottle of aspirin. There's just no way people could predict the dangers waiting inside such innocuous little thing, till it was too late. No way at all!


Coming up next, rogue NASA engineers ignore the laws of physics!

When all you have left is mockery, that becomes your argument?


Now you are equating Aspirin to addictive narcotics. When you find someone addicted to aspirin to the point that they have wrecked their lives taking it, then you will have a point. Should such a time come, please let me know so I can admit you are right.

Fallacy of false equivalency.

[Diogenes]

A bottle of aspirin. There's just no way people could predict the dangers waiting inside such innocuous little thing, till it was too late. No way at all!

Coming up next, rogue NASA engineers ignore the laws of physics!

Like everything in life there are risks vs rewards. The question is: who decides what the optimum is? Some fool in a far away place who decrees that everyone will conform to the average? Or are individuals going to be allowed self determination?

Suppose you break your leg and need opiates. Will some fool declare that everyone only be allowed the average dose (averaged among the whole population or just those in pain?) or can the dose be adjusted up for those in more severe pain?

Or how about if your pain is chronic? Because the brain makes more opiate receptors if the current ones are filled the requirements for pain meds for chronic pain rise over time. Does the bureaucrat understand this? Do the idiots who make the law know this? Did they know it when they made the law? (Probably not) Can the law be easily changed to conform to new knowledge? (Probably not)

The difficulty with control from afar is the knowledge problem. The man in the distant place simply can't account for 100,000 decisions made on 100,000 different criteria.

Here you go again, dishonestly misrepresenting your oppositions viewpoint.

I believe decisions regarding Medicines and dosage should be left up to Doctors, or those otherwise demonstrated competent (to the satisfaction of Medical community and Legally Authorized to so decide) to make such decisions.

Opposing Amateur recreational Pharmacology does not equal Opposing Medicinal\Expert Pharmacology.

[Betruger]

A bottle of aspirin. There's just no way people could predict the dangers waiting inside such innocuous little thing, till it was too late. No way at all!


Coming up next, rogue NASA engineers ignore the laws of physics!

When all you have left is mockery, that becomes your argument?

When you can't recognize an innocent/friendly jest between two who understand each other, what can you conclude?

The only thing I'll say to you, on this and while I'm at it your attitude and apparent philosophy in general.. And this is what was itching at me and I couldnt quite articulate yet - you're a relic. Fossilized before your time.

Can the law be easily changed to conform to new knowledge? (Probably not)

Probably not and (believe it or not Diogenes) that's why I'm on the fence. I don't see a feasible solution. Why insist like a ram against a wall, on a solution that's not feasible? Esp. not when you're dealing with not just govt drone army but citizen voters like Diogenes.

And btw I have no froth at the mouth nor malice or schadenfreude on my mind as I say all the above. Just calling it like I see it.

[MSimon]

I don't see a feasible solution.

Actually one is coming. The Webb Commission (modeled after the Wickersham Commission of alcohol prohibition) will provide the intellectual ammunition for a sea change.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/201 ... commission

Let me note that the vote for the commission in the House was by UNANIMOUS consent.

My friend Howard Wooldridge (a former police detective) thinks that prohibition has about 5 years left to run. I agree with him.

http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/

Howard is the guy with the hat.

One good reason is similar to the reason alcohol prohibition was ended. It was no longer affordable given the results, the expense, and the economic situation of the country. Down turns are very good for rationalizing operations of government as well as business.

Given the bloating of police depts. to "fight" drugs we will be paying for this for at least 30 years after it ends (police pensions). The good thing is that we will not be adding further to our burden. And as the retired die off we will start saving. Immediate savings will come from reduced police forces.

And that doesn't even count the savings from reduced property crimes, lowered insurance rates etc. Direct costs of the drug war are estimated (Federal, State, Local) at north of $50 bn a year with indirect costs of another $50 to $100 bn a year. You are starting to talk real money. Quite a ways away from the $200 million or so the Feds were spending (the Feds are now up to $25 bn [100+X]) when Nixon declared WAR on drugs.

And note: I didn't even mention the elevated murder rate. The "zones" in every city where it is dangerous in the day and suicide at night for an outsider. The $billions siphoned out of the real economy. Or RAP MUSIC.

Both Mayor Daley (the Younger) and a Police Chief from Conn. say prohibition related crimes run to 85% of the crimes in their jurisdiction.

When the money gets serious it takes precedence over morals. The refrain will be: "Yeah I know it is bad. But he is only hurting himself. And I'm sick and tired of being taxed for it. Besides, it ain't stopping him."

[KitemanSA]

I don't see a feasible solution.

Actually one is coming. The Webb Commission (modeled after the Wickersham Commission of alcohol prohibition) will provide the intellectual ammunition for a sea change.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/201 ... commission
Let me note that the vote for the commission in the House was by UNANIMOUS consent.
My friend Howard Wooldridge (a former police detective) thinks that prohibition has about 5 years left to run. I agree with him.

Can't end too soon!

[Betruger]

When the money gets serious it takes precedence over morals.

Let's hope it does come to that kind of pragmatism. Just like in real wars: it doesn't matter how unorthodox the method, only that it gets things done.

[Diogenes]

A bottle of aspirin. There's just no way people could predict the dangers waiting inside such innocuous little thing, till it was too late. No way at all!


Coming up next, rogue NASA engineers ignore the laws of physics!

When all you have left is mockery, that becomes your argument?

When you can't recognize an innocent/friendly jest between two who understand each other, what can you conclude?

The only thing I'll say to you, on this and while I'm at it your attitude and apparent philosophy in general.. And this is what was itching at me and I couldnt quite articulate yet - you're a relic. Fossilized before your time.

I see. My ideas are wrong because they are old. New ideas, like narcotic indulgence, are the wave of the future.

Funny, I can't help but think they look like the distant past.

Can the law be easily changed to conform to new knowledge? (Probably not)

Probably not and (believe it or not Diogenes) that's why I'm on the fence. I don't see a feasible solution. Why insist like a ram against a wall, on a solution that's not feasible? Esp. not when you're dealing with not just govt drone army but citizen voters like Diogenes.

And btw I have no froth at the mouth nor malice or schadenfreude on my mind as I say all the above. Just calling it like I see it.

On the fence *IS* a side. I can't wait to see how opening Pandora's box wider is going to help anything, but obviously people who have no personal experience with drug destruction are able to judge it's effects better than someone who has watched people die slowly of it.

After all, personal experience is such an "Old" idea.

[Diogenes]

Given the bloating of police depts. to "fight" drugs we will be paying for this for at least 30 years after it ends (police pensions). The good thing is that we will not be adding further to our burden. And as the retired die off we will start saving. Immediate savings will come from reduced police forces.

And that doesn't even count the savings from reduced property crimes, lowered insurance rates etc. Direct costs of the drug war are estimated (Federal, State, Local) at north of $50 bn a year with indirect costs of another $50 to $100 bn a year. You are starting to talk real money. Quite a ways away from the $200 million or so the Feds were spending (the Feds are now up to $25 bn [100+X]) when Nixon declared WAR on drugs.

And note: I didn't even mention the elevated murder rate. The "zones" in every city where it is dangerous in the day and suicide at night for an outsider. The $billions siphoned out of the real economy. Or RAP MUSIC.

You sound like the "Progressives" planning their war on poverty. You are already counting the benefits of your social engineering scheme. All of their numbers, facts, figures and projections were just so much crap, and so are yours.

It will produce economic benefits eventually. Once it deteriorates the ability of a government to govern sufficiently, the new rulers will acquire all of the property left by people too foolish to defend it.