TallDave wrote:regulation (by interdiction).
No, my friend. Interdiction is
not regulation. Interdiction is criminalization, which completely prevents any possibility of regulation. Please do not attempt to mix words around until they have no meaning; it renders the whole concept of debate moot.
You left out the harm caused by someone trying to get the stuff, the harm caused by shirking of responsibility to their dependents, and most importantly, the harm caused by telling other people the stuff is enjoyable, and getting them to try it. Those are all direct harms to other people IMO
Those
aren't direct harms. It's not a matter of opinion.
You are correct about that last part, but not in the way you think. It is NOT a matter of opinion, it's an absolute D*mn fact that inducing someone else to try a poison that kills them is a DIRECT HARM. It is CAUSAL.
TallDave wrote:
Direct harm means ACTUAL HARM CAUSED BY AN ACTION. Not by inaction, not by something someone did to get something else, not by maybe influencing someone by reporting an experience, not "well maybe this might cause future harm, in some way." Again, please use the consensus English language if you're going to make any pretense of debating sensibly.
Why should we start now?
We humans like our ideas to be stark black and white. We want them to fit neatly into the boundaries of our devising. We find it irritating when they refuse to be forced into a specific shape, and often we simply refuse to see the pieces that stick out. Many of us have a cognitive dissonance when faced by things we don't want to believe.
Let me try to make this simpler. If you give someone poison and tell them it's candy that is a direct harm. If you give someone poison and they die immediately, it is a direct harm. If you give someone poison and they die the next day, it is a direct harm. If you give someone poison and they linger in agony for weeks, it is still a direct harm.
Giving people stuff that wrecks their lives and/or kills them is a direct harm. It doesn't matter how long ago it was.
TallDave wrote:
You do realize one could argue video games, movies, and TV ought to be illegal on the exact same basis? This is why indirect harm is an unserious concept, and you have to tie the language in knots to attempt to justify the WOD.
No, that's a stretch past the breaking point, unless you can argue that video games match the carnage of drugs. Can you argue that?
TallDave wrote:
So says a study. The reality I have seen shows a very different perspective.
Data vs. anecdotal. Guess who wins? Addicts CAN function, whether you think so or not. Personal experience can often mislead us. Your only experience with addicts is in a situation in which society is actively trying to destroy them.
Don't you mean "
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes? "
Yeah, it's not too hard to figure out who's gonna win.
TallDave wrote:
You have either lost track of the point you are quoting or you are presenting an absurdity. The contention was that no society could survive a 25% addiction rate. Neither we, nor the Netherlands have a 25% addiction rate among the adult male population.
As I pointed out, China did survive, and suffered much worse from other problems. I don't see any real evidence they suffered from opium much at all, other than having some people probably be somewhat happier and somewat less productive, and exchanging at an unfavorable rate. Not an existential threat.
This reminds me of this phrase in the song "
MLF Lullaby" by Tom Lehrer.
"Once all the Germans were warlike and mean, but that couldn't happen again. We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then..."
Yeah, Opium didn't cause them much trouble. Of course the smaller Japanese Island was able to roll them up like a red carpet, but surely that didn't have anything to do with the fact they had a 25% addiction rate. (or 50% if you want to believe the drug library.) The fact that a dictator came along afterward and wiped out all the drug dealers/addicts "hardly bothered them since then. "
TallDave wrote:
Anyways, as has been pointed out to you several times by more than one person, close to 90% of people here in 2010 America use some form of mind-altering drug on a regular basis.
Boeing says their plane is better than Lockheed Martin. Sure, if you throw in caffeine, ginseng, taurine, corn syrup, and prescription drugs etc. with alcohol and tobacco, you might get 90%, but this is an attempt to deceive. It implies that the relatively harmless drugs (except for alcohol and tobacco) are the equivalent of toxic and deadly drugs such as Crack, Meth, Opium, Heroin, etc. What is such a statistic supposed to be used for other than deception?
TallDave wrote:
Had they examples of thousands of people dying every year because someone was exercising their freedom of speech, I would have to agree with them.
Seriously? Look at history. That is an excuse nearly
every tyrant has used to suppress dissent: free speech causes strife and violence.
Fine, let's look at history. There was a time when people used "freedom of speech"
to rouse crowds into a mob which attacked and murdered blacks and burned down their homes and businesses. In this particular situation, I don't think "freedom of speech" should have been tolerated, and is indeed kin to the supreme court's admonishen not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Did such events as this occur frequently, I would be all for shooting the ringleaders before they could rouse a crowd, and d@mn their freedom to speak. (Abraham Lincoln felt the same way.)
TallDave wrote:
And further down the slope we slide. This is why the WOD is such a contorted mess for anyone who believes in liberty, and why I abandoned supporting it a few years ago.
As far as i'm concerned, anyone who induces anyone else to use drugs has committed an immediate and direct harm to that individual.
...and there goes free speech in Diogenesland. See how easy it is to slide down the slippery slope?
A non sequitur.
TallDave wrote:
EVERYONE is ignorant of dangerous drugs effects
What? How do you figure? They can't read?
What has reading got to do with it? Reading and listening will not educate you as to the dangers you face. (even supposing you could get them to bother reading and listening.) For some people, even seeing will not educate them. This seems to be a road that can only be understood (for many people) by traveling it.
TallDave wrote:
The disease begat this cure. It will always begat this cure.
By this argument, the Netherlands is going to fall into totalitarianism any day now. I'm sure you see the problem with your dramatic sweeping statement.
Yes, it's being made to people with too little understanding of the time scale involved. China had nationwide Legal opium for a hundred years. As the Netherlands moves in that direction, it will come to resemble China (in this regard.) more and more. I don't think it will get enough time to fail in this manner. I think the Muslim invasion will swamp it before drugs do.
TallDave wrote:
People who are under the influence of addictive drugs are not motivated by free will, but by the chemistry manipulations they are performing on their own body. They are not of sound mind, and obviously not well informed.
As already pointed out, this is true for all sorts of biochemistry. Hell, seeing a pretty girl clouds the male mind considerably.
Good analogy. Seeing a pretty girl can indeed cloud the mind a bit, just as minor drugs like caffeine. Using Crack clouds the mind as if the girl drags you into bed and force humps you till you are exhausted. (you will be able to think of nothing else.)
You overlook the fact that sex is a natural drug addiction, and necessary for the species. Crack is a perversion of a normal biological process.
TallDave wrote:
Secondly, past experience has repeatedly shown such people to be a threat to themselves and everyone around them
I could say the same for people who advocate violent gov't responses to actions that cause no direct harm. By your logic, one can argue YOU should be locked up. (Fortunately for you, people on our side of the debate aren't into locking people for immorality that doesn't directly harm anyone.)
You can keep saying "that cause no direct harm" but I disagree completely with that assertion. It is the fact that it does causes both direct and indirect harm that makes it necessary for the government to address it.
TallDave wrote:
Thirdly, no one cares what "free-willed, well-informed people of sound mind, choose to ingest" as long as it isn't a substance that tampers with "free will and soundness of mind."
So no one cares, except when they do, in which case our rights go out the window. Glad that's clear now.
It's not a right, and it's not a freedom. It is neither necessary for life, nor beneficial to the cause of defending freedom. It is antithetical to freedom because it makes people incapable of defending it. It will BRING a dictator.
TallDave wrote:
Fourthly, these are not new powers for the state.
It took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal.
And yet Tobacco and other drugs are interdicted and regulated without one.
TallDave wrote:
You dodge the question. I am surprised given that you answered one of my previous questions honestly and forthrightly. Why does this question spook you so?
I haven't dodged it, I've answered it completely, if you would but read the answer. Again: bestiality should not be illegal just because people find it distasteful, but the rights of the animal should be considered. It's not always voluntary on the part of the animal.
I am sorry if I have trouble seeing a clear answer in nuance. "Yes" and "No" are much easier to comprehend. You are still trying to couch it in the "consent" argument, (which is just a dodge) but I will mark you down as finding bestiality not in conflict with your libertarian principles. Can we extend them to pedophilia? (and just get on with your "consent" (a legal construct, not a philosophical one.) argument, so we can get past it.)