2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

Also note: we have all seen what alcohol does to some people. Why no call for alcohol prohibition? After all alcohol kills far more people than heroin. Also note: the folks who over use alcohol tend to be the same people who over use other drugs. They are called polydrug users.

Alcohol consumption should be actively discouraged too, especially among children.

That is right! If a kid has a beer, throw him into jail for 5 year. 10 years for the second. Three strikes and he's out for life. That'll learn'im.

Now you are behaving like a dear friend who really cannot argue in a reasonable manner. He practices a technique that I call "Taking it to the opposite extreme."

If you say something is "X", and he says's it's "Y", and you provide a good argument that it is indeed "X", he'll get pissed off and respond, Yeah, it's X * Infinity! "


Sometimes this behavior is amusing, but sometimes I actually get tired of the histrionics.

[Diogenes]

simply: no

Addiction is a state of mind; the predilection for it is in the mind by a likely inherited factor. Drugs don't "hook" everybody who takes them; they hook those who need something to fill a hole. Even if drugs had not been invented, these people would be addicted to something.

How in the world can you say that? By what bit of arcane wizardry could you possibly have come by the knowledge that drugs addicts have some sort of social genotype?

I can say that because I actually pay attention to minor things like research in the field and facts.

"Family, adoption and twin data each support substantial heritability for addictions. Most of this heritable influence is not substance-specific."
“Higher order” addiction molecular genetics: Convergent data from genome-wide association in humans and mice

And your Genetic data can predict "those who need something to fill a hole"?

That is the sum total of what I meant in my response to you. Misery and emptiness are part of everyone's life at one time or another. Strangely enough, not everyone that need something to fill a hole turns out to be a drug addict.

And really, we've pointed out the experimental programs in other countries to give away drugs to whoever wants, and they have REDUCED the number of addicts.

Yeah, like "Needles Park" in Switzerland where every morning the coroner's staff comes to the park to clean up all the dead bodies lying around from the overdoses. I can see how killing of the addicts would reduce drug usage. Puts an entirely different light on "REDUCED the number of addicts."

Last I heard, they canceled the program.

http://www.swissworld.org/en/people/dru ... ard_drugs/
"The trend [in drug deaths] had been generally falling since the mid-1990s, after reaching a record of 419 in 1992."
Deaths have averaged ~190 with an addict population of 30,000, or 1 per 150

with an addict population of 9.5 million (~2.95%), America has 38,000 deaths, or 1 per 250.

Switzerland is seeing a higher addict death rate. But it does not matter.

Because the issue is whether it is our RIGHT to do whatever we want to our body, REGARDLESS of the harm it does to us.

I hope you're willing to defend that notion, because I want to ask you if mental patients should be allowed to do what they want?

I also want to know if you are okay with a parent spending his time getting high on dope instead of working to feed his child?

If your answer to both questions is "Yes", then congratulations, your philosophy is consistent, but your sanity is suspect.

How about a real answer, not a doge or attempted finesse?

[Diogenes]

Because the issue is whether it is our RIGHT to do whatever we want to our body, REGARDLESS of the harm it does to us.

Quite so. Do we own ourselves or are we just cattle on the BIG GOVERNMENT cattle ranch?

No, you are people with the delusion that you are an island and that what you do will not harm others. You own yourself, but you also have a responsibility to others not to do things detrimental to society, and that includes behaving recklessly.

I have a LOT of people depending on me, and if I screw myself up, i'm gonna hurt a lot more people than just myself.

Society, is in fact an integrated system. What one person does to themselves, can have severe and unforeseen consequences for people other than themselves.

[Diogenes]

KitemanSA,

Something that I find amusing is that if you scratch most pro-drug war people you will find that generally they are the least likely to believe that government is efficient and generally they believe that government lies. Except for the drug war. Yeah. Right.

No, I think they are screwing that up too. I would make it a priority to violently wipe out the people moving/producing the drugs. Spike their costs of doing business high enough, and they are out of business.

We once used this methodology. Remember the "Untouchables?"

Of course then you have the lefties who believe government is a force for good. Except the drug war.

My thought is that the government lies and is hardly ever efficient. In all matters.

Yeah, that's true, but it's beside the point. The Government IS the entity which should undertake this task, even if it isn't efficient, it has the mandate.

The Drug War is the CAGW of the Right. Just another excuse for power and control.

Not remotely similar.

[Diogenes]

And really, we've pointed out the experimental programs in other countries to give away drugs to whoever wants, and they have REDUCED the number of addicts.

Yeah, like "Needles Park" in Switzerland where every morning the coroner's staff comes to the park to clean up all the dead bodies lying around from the overdoses. I can see how killing of the addicts would reduce drug usage. Puts an entirely different light on "REDUCED the number of addicts."
Last I heard, they canceled the program.

Where did you come up with that "dead bodies lying around" stuff? Here is an acount of WHY they closed the park.

The program worked: by early this year, the incidence of new AIDS cases had dropped from 50% to 5%. (Overall, 20% of Zurich's addicts have tested HIV positive.) Trouble was, the Platzspitz also became a magnet for professional dealers, especially Lebanese, Yugoslav and Turkish gangs that overran small dealers in a violent price war.

Since it was still illegal, just not suppressed, the violence related to cornering the market of such irresponsibly regulated merchandise caused "unintended consequences". Gee, what a surprise. If it had been LEGAL to sell drugs, responsible businesses would have been protected and the violence would have been avoided. There are VERY few (read none) cases of voilence in cornering the liquer market in the US. There used to be, when it was illegal. See a trend?.

So, according to you, the problem with Needles Park would be solved by making the entire country a needles park?

We're back to the theory of communism. The reason it doesn't work is because it's not widespread enough. It WOULD work, if freedom( or in this case, prohibition) didn't exist on the other side of the border. Strange that the Swiss couldn't see this simple answer.

Oh, and yet again, the bodies were not from the DRUGS but from the drug WAR. When will you learn?

You seem incapable of or perhaps unwilling to read the literature.

Yeah, i'm a moron.

Well, if that is how you feel about yourself, I won't argue.

Listen, if Boeing publishes a report stating that a Lockheed aircraft is superior to theirs, I'll believe them. If they say instead, that their aircraft is superior to the Lockheed, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

WOW! the man has decided to stop listening to the government propaganda about drugs and actually think for himself. VICTORY!!!!

What I need to do is stop listening to libertarian propaganda. I find it pretty pathetic that many of these conversations inevitably end up on the topic of drug prohibition. It is the equivalent of arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic in terms of importance, yet among those with this topic as a fetish, it is the most important thing in the world.

Just that fact alone is enough to convince me that drugs are bad.

But I guess he really means that not-for-profit research groups are "Boeing" and the govm't is pure as the driven snow. Yup, the govm't has succeeded in another snow-job!

I feel the same way about literature from people with an agenda, especially when the conclusions contradict my own first hand knowledge.

First hand knowledge? What FIRST hand knowledge do you have. Details please.

I know people who died from drugs. I know people who might as well be dead, from drugs. I know people who did stuff because of drugs. I know people who escaped from drugs. I used to know walking skeletons. Were I discussing this with someone who expressed what I considered to be a serious attitude regarding this topic, I would provide more information privately, but at this point I don't see any purpose to it, but I will tell you one detail that you may or may not know. The Dealers often "ass pack" to transport their merchandise to the junkie. If they get stopped by the police, they have nothing on them. If a dog attempts to sniff their butt, they act frightened of the dog, or claim it's just smelling their butt.

So the junkie ends up smoking or injecting something that came out of a mans butt hole. Sometimes they get sh*t on it. They smoke it anyway. That's nothing compared to what they will do to get it in the first place.

[93143]

What if you want to cut off both your legs because it arouses you sexually?

Not my cup-o-tea. I can't really think that it is any-one else's either. So I can't play this "what-if".

Some guy in Europe tracked down a cannibal and had himself eaten because it aroused him sexually.

Never underestimate Rule 36.

When a yearly consumption is given like this, it means in gallons of pure alcohol; that is, each drink counting it's alcohol content only.

Use peaked in America somewhere around 70 gallons in the 1880s

That's roughly 61 ounces of 80-proof liquor per day. Impressive...

[Diogenes]

Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than heroin and meth (or its chemical analogs) is given to children.

Whatever. lets discourage the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and the self dosing of dangerous compounds for recreational purposes among children, OK?

Privately, not thru government.

And anecdote is not evidence. Start a new thread if you want to debate it - it's a whole other topic.

I need evidence to convince another party that something is so.

If I witnessed something first hand, the only evidence I need is the evidence of my eyes. Now this is not good enough to prove something to others, but it is easily good enough to prove it to myself.

As that is the salient point of this particular side topic, that is all that matters.

[Betruger]

Yes. But then it's evidence inaccessible for discussion such as this. "nihil affirmat quod non probat", as the saying goes. Just as others oughtn't expect you to discard that evidence, you can't expect others to take your word for it.

[MSimon]

Ah Diogenes,

Since you admit you can't be swayed by evidence outside your own experience we can say that your opinion is not grounded in general facts but only your own experience. This is a rather limited world view and as such can never be swayed by argument:

My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.

Remind me to avoid you when it comes to engineering projects. Should I forget.

In fact we would call your attitude bigoted or prejudiced in most situations. If you were an engineer (you wouldn't be for long) we would call it stupid.

So let me ask you my social engineering friend - how can you engineer a solution if you refuse to study all the dimensions of the problem? Isn't that exactly what you would accuse our leftist social engineering friends of?

Now the real question is re: your experience - is what you saw the result of the drugs or the result of prohibition?

Just as we can ask: is the alcohol experience from 1920 to 1933 due to alcohol or to alcohol prohibition.

[KitemanSA]

...There are indeed people who want to chop off body parts because of a mental condition. "Apotemnophilia" and "Acrotomophilia". Look em up.

The point is, do you think these people have a right to mutilate themselves, or are they mentally ill and should be protected from doing something to themselves that they will later regret?

Not an "OR" type question. Yes they have the right (morality) to mutilate themselves. The government should not force these poor people into prisons where "criminals" are placed. Seems they are mentally ill. Can you prove that these people are mentally children? If so, then society (the civil court) can recognize another individual as guardian. At that point, the guardian may do what is best (ethics) for the "child". This won't be sticking the child into prison. The distinction is "wrong" vs "bad". Until you can understand that distinction, you will try to apply solutions for "wrong" to problems of good vs bad. You can't do good by doing wrong.

So I can't play this "what-if". If you can convince me that somehow being crazy means that someone is NOT "people" and therefore can be owned by another person who there-after has the right to do with their property as they wish and prevent that not-person from such activity, good luck. I don't think is it gonna happen.

Just tell me your opinion on mental patients, and we can go from there.

Mental patients are people in a mental hospital or ward, or in "out-patient" state of same.

Was that "Apotemnophilia" or "Acrotomophilia" part of your first hand knowledge? Details please.

[KitemanSA]

You folks ignore that psychoactive substances effect the decision making process,

So does sleep deprivation...

making the individual, not only a danger to himself, but others too.

No, I do not ignore that fact. I just don't absolve them of guilt for anything that happens under the influence, unless the drugs were administered involuntarily.

Now you are approaching the concept of euthenasia. "This person might do something bad to me in the future so I'll kill him now.

Nawww, lets just throw them in prison for the rest of their lives. That'd be ok.

[MSimon]

If drug users are in fact mentally ill they should be treated not persecuted.

But if they are self medicating they need to be punished to protect the pharmaceutical interests.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ation.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... drugs.html

And a good one: Drug testing lowers high tech productivity.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -tech.html

[KitemanSA]

What if A is doing this?

What if A is spending so much time getting high that they aren't taking care of their responsibilities, like feeding their children?

Then take that mother to court for child abuse. After all, she is doing wrong to that child, no? To that extent she is being criminal. Makes no difference WHY she was being criminal, that fact that drugs may or may not have been involved is immaterial. Prosecute her crime. And once she has been convicted, have her "parental responsibilities" terminated in favor of you or someone else who volunteers. Problem solved.

[KitemanSA]

Interesting. My take on this sub-topic had nothing to do with you "lying" about your intentions. My point was that the purity of your intentions did not absolve you of the responsibilty for the forseeable results of your actions.

And that is a completely separate and irrelevant point. Let's just say you are correct about this. You still should not accuse someone of intending to shoot a child when they are shooting at a deer with no knowledge that a child is nearby.

Yet again, a bad analogy. In this case (burning you wife's butt) you had full and perfect knowledge that the child was strapped on the side of the dear and you shot through it anyway. Your poor analogy, not mine.

Now if you are calling your wife a liar, no wait, you think she is calling you a liar because she accused you of intending to burn her butt...

Whatever the case, your action causes the seat to be hot. Be responsible, be a man.

Be a logical thinker. Don't pump useless and irrelevant bullshit into a hypothetical situation created solely for the purpose of getting a point across.

In fact of the matter, I ALWAYS leave my windows down, and My wife has her own car anyway.

Your poor analogy, not mine.

[KitemanSA]

Alcohol consumption should be actively discouraged too, especially among children.

That is right! If a kid has a beer, throw him into jail for 5 year. 10 years for the second. Three strikes and he's out for life. That'll learn'im.

Now you are behaving like a dear friend who really cannot argue in a reasonable manner. He practices a technique that I call "Taking it to the opposite extreme."
If you say something is "X", and he says's it's "Y", and you provide a good argument that it is indeed "X", he'll get pissed off and respond, Yeah, it's X * Infinity! "
Sometimes this behavior is amusing, but sometimes I actually get tired of the histrionics.

I am sorry that you don't recognize yourself in that display of histrionics, since that is EXACTLY what you propose for users of other drugs.