What the Obots think of anybody who disagrees with them

[MSimon]

Well, You know of course there is no such thing as "Switching." There is only ADDING another method of impairment to the list.

Once again Dave you show your ignorance.

When cannabis was legal doctors used to prescribe it to alcoholics as a safer alternative. Doctors Dave.

And yes Dave. There are safer and less safe drugs.

Unless you believe that cannabis = heroin in its effects. Which is on its face not credible.

But I understand your problem. Drugs are making you stupid. Funny thing is you appear to be rather intelligent when it comes to other technologies.

And Dave. We are not adding another drug. Marijuana is already here. All we can do now is determine who distributes it. Wal Mart or criminals. I still don't get why you believe prohibited means unavailable.

My town of 150,000 has TWO grow op stores. Two Dave. They both have been in business for about 5 years. Now unless you believe that that the demand for African Violets and Orchids is extraordinarily high in an area with unemployment well above 10% then you have to conclude that they are probably selling to those growing prohibited substances because of the profit potential of the prohibited substances.

BTW Rockford was where Al Capone brewed his beer for sale in Chicago. Some things never change.

I love discussing this subject with prohibitionists. They are so uniformly ignorant. It is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[ravingdave]

Dave,
Libertarianism is about government leaving people alone (a founding principle of the USA BTW). Conservatism is about using government guns to attempt to get desired results.

No it isn't. It is about not making changes to existing laws, customs, and cultures without a good reason for doing so. Most of the sensible laws are long established, and most of the time, change just makes them worse, not better.

Conservatism is the opposition to overthrowing established ideas in favor of the latest fad of the century.

And you know where that leads.

I reject your premise. (Conservatism is about using government guns to attempt to get desired results.)
This is your Fantasy. Only you know where it leads.

If you tell people what to do they will do the opposite. If you leave them alone they will do as they darn well please.

Case in point: Holland which has significantly lower rates of pot use than the good ole USA. Especially true among teens.

Or Portugal which has had legal cannabis for 8 years with no noticeable social effects.

Seriously Dave. You make pronouncements with no facts to back them up. I can back up every statement I have made on the subject. Why? I have actually studied it. As opposed to falling in line with government propaganda.

If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything.
-- Fred Menger

BTW the government will no longer debate with anti-prohibitionists armed with facts. They haven't for about a decade. Why? The anti-prohibitionists make them look bad. Very bad.

That's one explanation. It could be that they just think they are kooks and don't feel like arguing with them.

I am, Of course, more patient.

Just as I'm doing with your arguments. We slice 'em and dice 'em.

Straw is easy to cut. I'll let you know when you get to my arguments.




===

Note: conservative don't give a durn about follow on effects. If they did they would be concerned about the amount of crime and the murders prohibition induces. If conservatives actually cared they would find some other way of increasing drug use besides handing control of drug distribution over to criminals.

You are mistaking consequences for intent. No one is in favor of increasing the power of criminal gangs, except the criminal gangs. You see, they break other laws too.

INTERNATIONAL
Summer 1999

On June 13, 54% of voters in Switzerland endorsed state distribution of heroin to addicts. The vote supported the medically supervised distribution of heroin to about 1,500 addicts. Despite a recent vote supporting the heroin maintenance program and a government report hailing the program as a success, the initiative to end the program was put on the ballot by anti-drug groups, such as Swiss Doctors Against Drugs (Associated Press, "Swiss Voters Turn Down Paid Maternity Leave," Toronto Star, June 14, 1999; Bruce Lawson, "Switzerland's Heroin Program Faces the Voters," Globe and Mail (Canada), June 9, 1999).•

http://www.ndsn.org/summer99/intl2.html

Heroin Dave. From the conservative Swiss. You know the Swiss. A machine gun in every home.

I don't know any Swiss personally, and if they are mixing machine guns and heroine together, i'd rather not get too familiar.

Page last updated at 23:49 GMT, Sunday, 30 November 2008

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm

How about that Dave? 68% Up from 54% nine years earlier. If only Republicans could garner those kins of vote totals.

Yeah, Republicans could run the Titanics engines at 3/4 speed as opposed to Full throttle like the Democrats.

Evidently the Swiss like the effects of the policy. Plus - they are no longer supporting criminals and terrorists. Something the Republicans seem committed to doing. Kind of strange for the law and order party don't you think?

It would be were it true. It is not, but you keep asserting it anyway. It is what I refer to as the fallacy of false equivalency. It is a variation of the logical argument " if A = B, and C = D, then A= C. " A non sequitur.

In any case, while we're talking about the Swiss, how about THIS bit of news ?

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.

But in another referendum vote, 63% of voters rejected the decriminalisation of CANNABIS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm

I'm not sure i'd be citing the Swiss in defense of your argument, but your methods sometimes seem odd to me.

As the old saying goes though. You can never reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -Winston Churchill

Those are pretty good, but I like this one as well.

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
-- Leo Tolstoy

A Libertarian believes that government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. A Conservative believes this time it will be different.

Where do you get these ideas ? Conservatives believe in limited Government. Not the absence of government.

Liberals believe in Total government, Libertarians believe in almost none, and Conservatives believe in No more than necessary.



David

[ravingdave]

Dang, Dave. From this schpiel you almost sound (shhh) libertarian.

The reason he isn't is that he doesnt believe in innocent until proven guilty. He wants a fascist government that sees all and prevents all politically incorrect acts.

What have I ever said that leads you to believe such a thing ?

If you believe in freedom, you need to accept that people are going to put themselves in circumstances that harm others, period. All you can do is prosecute for wilfull acts and negligence, and make sure compensation is paid.

That's ALL you can do ? So I take it you are advocating Reacting over preventing ?

Drivers licenses are examples of correcting a problem before it becomes a problem. ( People not knowing how to drive.)

State wide or County wide burn ban (prohibitions against lighting a fire outdoors when it has the potential to ignite acres of dry grass) is another example of prudent prevention.

Leaving the administering of drugs to medically trained doctors is another preventative example.

Training Aircraft pilots, Architects, Engineers, etc.

I think the concept of preventing people from causing LIKELY accidents is well ingrained in our society.

I think the people's tolerance for people taking risks that might endanger other people is highly dependent on the probability that harm will befall others. In the case of Intoxicated driving, the public made up it's mind a long time ago.


David

[ravingdave]

Case in point: Holland which has significantly lower rates of pot use than the good ole USA. Especially true among teens.

Slight correction. Lower rate of INDIGENOUS pot use. Add in the foreigners and the rate climbs substantially. (Based on fairly old data).

The Swiss apparently don't like legalizing pot.

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.

But in another referendum vote, 63% of voters rejected the decriminalisation of cannabis.

Ah, those quirky Europeans ! What will they do next ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm


David

[MSimon]

I reject your premise. (Conservatism is about using government guns to attempt to get desired results.)

You can reject my premise all you want. That does not make your denial true.

Are conservatives the biggest supporters of prohibition?

Were they the biggest supporters of alcohol prohibition? I'll give you a name just to refresh your memory: Billy Sunday. I can even give a quote:

On the eve of national Prohibition in 1919, evangelist Billy Sunday spoke before a live audience of ten thousand people and a radio audience of millions:

The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and the children will laugh. Hell will forever be rent.

Of course, the Rev. Sunday's high hopes were not realized - crime and alcohol poisonings actually increased during this period, and hell was not rent.

http://www.peele.net/blog/081010.html

Do conservatives support using government guns against possessors of cannabis (status crimes) or do they prefer to exhort users gently to give up their evil ways?

Jeeze Dave. I know the evidence makes conservatives look bad. And what do conservatives do? The same thing members of the AGW religion do. Deny the evidence.

[Mike Holmes]

I really like the ad hominem portion of this debate... let's see more of that from both of you. At least it's entertaining; if not quite salutory to the prospect of convincing anyone of your positions.

On the other hand, if the goal of this site (even if this IS the "general" part of it) is to convince folks that polywell is not quackery, then perhaps adjusting your style of rhetoric a tad might be a good idea. This from a guy who realizes that he, too, makes mistakes like this all the time. It's a negative side-effect of being passionate for which you have to be vigilant.

I'm not saying... I'm just saying.

Mike

[ravingdave]

Well, You know of course there is no such thing as "Switching." There is only ADDING another method of impairment to the list.

Once again Dave you show your ignorance.

When cannabis was legal doctors used to prescribe it to alcoholics as a safer alternative. Doctors Dave.

And yes Dave. There are safer and less safe drugs.

Unless you believe that cannabis = heroin in its effects. Which is on its face not credible.

But I understand your problem. Drugs are making you stupid. Funny thing is you appear to be rather intelligent when it comes to other technologies.

And Dave. We are not adding another drug. Marijuana is already here. All we can do now is determine who distributes it. Wal Mart or criminals. I still don't get why you believe prohibited means unavailable.

My town of 150,000 has TWO grow op stores. Two Dave. They both have been in business for about 5 years. Now unless you believe that that the demand for African Violets and Orchids is extraordinarily high in an area with unemployment well above 10% then you have to conclude that they are probably selling to those growing prohibited substances because of the profit potential of the prohibited substances.

BTW Rockford was where Al Capone brewed his beer for sale in Chicago. Some things never change.

I love discussing this subject with prohibitionists. They are so uniformly ignorant. It is like shooting fish in a barrel.

MSimon, if your point is that Marijuana is Safer and Less risky to innocents than Alcohol, I say your evidence is persuasive and I am convinced.

But if you are saying that decriminalizing it will result in people switching from alcohol to marijuana, I believe that is just a bridge too far.

I think we would simply end up with people doing both with a net gain of people under the influence. The people I know who smoke pot also drink a lot. One guy in particular has had 5 DUIs, and simply doesn't drive anymore.

I personally don't care about pot, but i'm not the one you need to convince.


David

[ravingdave]

I reject your premise. (Conservatism is about using government guns to attempt to get desired results.)

You can reject my premise all you want. That does not make your denial true.

No, it doesn't. Reality does.

Are conservatives the biggest supporters of prohibition?

If by supporters, you mean not interested in changing existing law ?
I kinda regard that as passive acquiescence. They just don't see the Upside of increasing the opportunities for people to alter their brain chemistry recreationally.

Were they the biggest supporters of alcohol prohibition? I'll give you a name just to refresh your memory: Billy Sunday. I can even give a quote:

On the eve of national Prohibition in 1919, evangelist Billy Sunday spoke before a live audience of ten thousand people and a radio audience of millions:

The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and the children will laugh. Hell will forever be rent.

Of course, the Rev. Sunday's high hopes were not realized - crime and alcohol poisonings actually increased during this period, and hell was not rent.

http://www.peele.net/blog/081010.html

There are people who don't know what they are talking about throughout human history. You found one that fits your narrative. Here's another example of the phenomenon.

I assure you that the uranium bomb cannot possibly work, and I speak as an expert on High Explosives.”- Admiral William Leahy

Do conservatives support using government guns against possessors of cannabis (status crimes) or do they prefer to exhort users gently to give up their evil ways?

Not the way you describe it, but if an officers life is endangered, h*ll yeah!
Pot arrests normally don't require the use of guns. I hear in California they just hand out a ticket. I guess that's the "Gentle" version.


Jeeze Dave. I know the evidence makes conservatives look bad. And what do conservatives do? The same thing members of the AGW religion do. Deny the evidence.

I think regarding it as underwhelming is not the same thing as denying it.




David

[ravingdave]

I really like the ad hominem portion of this debate... let's see more of that from both of you. At least it's entertaining; if not quite salutory to the prospect of convincing anyone of your positions.

On the other hand, if the goal of this site (even if this IS the "general" part of it) is to convince folks that polywell is not quackery, then perhaps adjusting your style of rhetoric a tad might be a good idea. This from a guy who realizes that he, too, makes mistakes like this all the time. It's a negative side-effect of being passionate for which you have to be vigilant.

I'm not saying... I'm just saying.

Mike

Well HE started it !

DID NOT !

DID TOO !

DID NOT! DID NOT! DID NOT! DID NOT! DID NOT!

DID TOO INFINITY !

DID NOT INFINITY + 1 !

You shoulda seen me 18 years ago!

Like I said, it's all in fun. I like MSimon, I like his passion, and he might even convince me he's right. So who wants to argue with someone who won't put up a fight ?


David

[MSimon]

And Dave. These kinds of shenanigans are so well known there is actually a name for them.

Baptist/bootlegger coalitions.

And you know what the Baptists always say in response? Pay no attention to results. My intentions are good.

Which other segment of the political spectrum uses that argument? I'm sure you are familiar with it.



I ask: Why do you like prohibition?

Answer: It keeps kids away from bad stuff.

I respond: What it actually does is make the bad stuff MORE available to kids.

Answer: My intentions are good.

What do I fail to hear? "If the policy isn't working in the way I think it should then the policy should change based on evidence of what works better."

So what do we know? Regulated beer is harder for kids to get than prohibited pot.

And the response to that is: "But kids will still get the stuff." Yep. And they can still get beer too. Just not as easily.

In other words we need to keep a policy that absolutely doesn't work because the replacement policy is not perfect.

I'm comforted by the fact that Conservatives were once against Jazz and more recently against Rock 'n Roll. I remember growing up and hearing TV sermons about Godless Rock Music Destroying Our Youth. It seems so quaint now.

[Wittgenstein]

I've avoided even looking at this thread. I'm very interested in fusion, but I've read and seen things on other non-polywell threads that I find, shall we say, less interesting. Today I decided to take a peak. Not sure why.

There is talk on other threads of recruiting investors. Attracting potential investors requires not just the belief that the science has potential, but that the individuals involved in the project possess both the technical skills and personal attributes to pull it off.

I don't think intelligent investors are scared of dealing with people who hold views that differ from their own, even on highly controversial subjects. But the tenor of a debate can give impressions of people that might give investors pause.

Someone posted a couple pages back that "this is not the place for it", to which a good-natured reply was that it's ok because "no one takes us seriously". It is not a good idea to commingle "seeking investment" with "not taken seriously."

Just my thoughts. Worth what you paid for them.

[MSimon]

It is about not making changes to existing laws, customs, and cultures without a good reason for doing so.

Well I'm all for that Dave. So is it your opinion that racism was a good reason for making marijuana illegal in 1937? Because Dave the history shows that that was the reason.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

In fact the whole deal about outlawing certain drugs was never about health and safety. It was covert racism. Pure and simple.

That is not very nice Dave. Not very nice at all.

I take the conservative position on the issue. I say go back to what worked. Re-legalize.

[MSimon]

Dave,

I still can't figure out why you believe "prohibited" means unavailable when the evidence shows that is not true.

Do you want Wal Mart distributing drugs or criminals? Are we better off with packaged goods stores or was Al Capone the better choice?

Because we have been at this prohibition thing for some 70 years and every year drugs are more available and cheaper.

Do you want to finance sustained attacks on our Southern Border or would you prefer those attacks be reduced?

Milton Friedman called prohibition "socialism for criminals." Should our government be supporting vast criminal enterprises. If alcohol prohibition is any predictor it takes about 50 years for the criminal networks spawned by government price supports to die out.

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/frie ... ialist.htm

The sooner we end these price supports for organized crime the sooner we will be done with these criminal enterprises. We will have a hell of a hangover though.

[MSimon]

OK Dave,

I've come around to your way of thinking. Allowing people to use drugs that were recently made illegal is bad.

Now how do we get the government to go after white people with the same zeal that they go after people of color.

We know that the rates of dealing and using among all segments of the population are approximately equal. How do we get the government to go after whites?

[MSimon]

So Dave,

What do we have to do to get the rates of white incarceration for drug crimes up?

Here is something interesting:

For the first time in a quarter century, the number of African-Americans incarcerated for drug offenses in state prisons has declined more than 20 percent while the number of white imprisoned drug offenders has increased more than 40 percent.

The decline took place over a six year period from 1999 to 2005 and reflects fundamental changes in the so-called "war on drugs" – how it's targeted and prosecuted....

According to the study, the number of blacks in state prisons on drug-related charges dropped from 144,700 in 1999 to 113,500 in 2005. The number of white drug-offenders in prison increased during the same time from 50,700 to 72,300.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0414/p02s01-usgn.html

I have always said that if whites were imprisoned at the rates blacks are support for the drug war would decline. You don't suppose the above is responsible for the recent change in sentiment re: the drug war?

We still have a long ways to go to get the white rates proportional to population. But it is a start.

A majority of Americans, in a poll released Wednesday, say it "makes sense to tax and regulate" marijuana. The Zogby poll, commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report, surveyed 3,937 voters and found 52 percent in favor of legalization. Only 37 percent opposed.

A previous ABC News/Washington Post poll found 46 percent in support. In California, a Field Poll found 56 percent backing legalization.

Responding to the poll at a press conference Tuesday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for an open debate on legalization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/0 ... 98196.html

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.