Ronald Reagan, the Greatest President Of My Lifetime

[Diogenes]

http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/netherl ... /05262009/
An interesting bit about the crime problem in the Netherlands - or, rather, the lack of one.

Bombed out reefer addicts prefer to lazy around and get fat. It's not a crime, but it's certainly not good for any country.

In any case, I wouldn't be too concerned about the Netherlands prisons. With the Muslim encroachment into Europe, I'm thinking that pretty soon they won't have any trouble filling them up.

[TallDave]

Bombed out reefer addicts prefer to lazy around and get fat. It's not a crime, but it's certainly not good for any country.

Maybe you don't have the right to force them to do what you think is better for the country.

[Diogenes]

Bombed out reefer addicts prefer to lazy around and get fat. It's not a crime, but it's certainly not good for any country.

Maybe you don't have the right to force them to do what you think is better for the country.

The Netherlands is it's own country. It's influence on me and my life is effectively nil. I don't give a rat's rear end if they practice bestiality, (Which they finally outlawed. ) or let the Muslims take them over.

What I care about is what affects me, my family and friends. Keep that sh*t on the other side of a wide ocean, and I have no complaints. Try to recruit my kids into weed, and i'll object as though you were trying to recruit them into the KKK.

[Diogenes]

"Shameless lying"

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I had in mind "Reefer Madness" and the study that claimed to find "brain damage" in monkeys from cannabis use (which was later withdrawn as completely wrong, but apparently that didn't stop them from showing it to me in 4th grade).

My apologies. I misread the context.

It is my own personal opinion that the only major danger from marijuana use is the bad examples it serves to young heads full of mush.

In any case, you are arguing that having 27% of adult males in America addicted to drugs is oki doki. I

I'm fine with 27% of adult males doing whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes. I'm not in favor of spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to try to make them do what you or I think is better for them through the use of state violence.

I am thinking that you agree with this notion in theory, yet I don't believe you would find it tolerable in practice. 27% of the Adult male population addicted to Opium would be a dire threat to our civilization and our country.

Tell me this. By what authority can the government draft you and compel you to fight for them?
Exactly.

It is not pragmatic to talk of "rights" when any government that accepts this notion and respects it won't live any longer than the first conflict. We have the "rights" we can afford. When we can't afford them, (such as during a war.) we will completely ignore them. The real rules are: "You will fight whether you want to or not, and you will not engage in any behavior that diminishes your fighting ability. "

That is how things really work in practice.

Back when we had 25% of Americans out of work, we called it the "Great Depression." I can't imagine why the Chinese would object to that!

Why do you assume they weren't working? Addicts are generally quite capable of functioning normally, if you don't criminalize their addiction. See William Stewart Halsted, the father of modern surgery.

Yeah, you or someone else posted a link to his biography. After reading it, I pointed out that the silly bastard experimented on himself with drugs he did not understand, and ended up suffering from addiction for the rest of his life. The way you describe it, he was able to indulge his addiction and remain productive. In fact, he had to go to a sanitarium for an extended period of time, and struggled mightily to get free of the addiction. He made every effort to minimize his usage of drugs, he did not splurge on it recklessly. It is a testament to his character that he was able to work in SPITE of the addiction, not because of it.

This debate can be distilled to one fairly simple question: do you allow people to make their own mistakes, as long as they are harming only themselves, and criminalize only direct harm to others, or do you criminalize bad choices even in situations where they have no effect on anyone else?

Would that it were so simple. If people decided to climb a mountain and didn't prepare themselves properly, or suffered some accident, then they would have only harmed themselves through their mistakes.

Drugs harm others, because the usage of them LURE others to try them, before the final consequences become apparent. The seemingly harmless pleasure begets a horrible consequence which people simply can't see till later in life. After it is too late.

In this regard, Drugs work like risky sex. It looks like fun, but the increasing probability of death is hidden till it's too late.


Drugs are also like herpes. If you could separate the pool of carriers from the non infected for a long enough period of time, no one would ever need to suffer any further from the disease.

[TallDave]

Drugs harm others, because the usage of them LURE others to try them, before the final consequences become apparent.

Shrug. You could say the same of mountain climbing, or skydiving, or video games, or Twinkies. A free society lets people make their own decisions.

I think part of your confusion on this issue is that drugs are currently unregulated. Legalized, regulated drugs would carry giant warning labels:

"THIS PRODUCT IS EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE"

"DO NOT USE MORE THAN ONCE PER TWELVE HOURS"

"THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THIS PRODUCT MAY BE EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH"

"ADDICTION PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GETCLEAN"

And the taxes on the drugs would go toward educating people on the dangers of drugs and helping them get clean.

I am thinking that you agree with this notion in theory, yet I don't believe you would find it tolerable in practice. 27% of the Adult male population addicted to Opium would be a dire threat to our civilization and our country.

I doubt it matters much at all. Addicts with legal access to their drug (like Halsted) generally manage to be productive. But if you thought it was a problem, then you could mount a campaign to convince them to stop -- VOLUNTARILY.

You cannot criminalize people's choices regarding what to do with their bodies. You don't have the right.

Your argument on the draft doesn't hold much water. The state may *temporarily* suspend the rights of citizens for the sake of defending the nation from an existential threat to their lives and liberty. It may not permanently take them away for the purpose of forcibly attempting to make us better people according to the guidelines of self-appointed moralists.

[Diogenes]

Drugs harm others, because the usage of them LURE others to try them, before the final consequences become apparent.

Shrug. You could say the same of mountain climbing, or skydiving, or video games, or Twinkies. A free society lets people make their own decisions.

They are not the same, because the dangers of mountain climbing or skydiving are capable of being seen before hand, and these activities are not normally done with a judgment bending substance coursing through people's veins.

I think part of your confusion on this issue is that drugs are currently unregulated. Legalized, regulated drugs would carry giant warning labels:

"THIS PRODUCT IS EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE"

"DO NOT USE MORE THAN ONCE PER TWELVE HOURS"

"THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THIS PRODUCT MAY BE EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH"

"ADDICTION PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GETCLEAN"

And the taxes on the drugs would go toward educating people on the dangers of drugs and helping them get clean.

I have speculated about some form of licensing as a plausible methodology. We license dynamite users and other dangerous substances, but the concept of licensing is hardly compatible with a "Right."

I am thinking that you agree with this notion in theory, yet I don't believe you would find it tolerable in practice. 27% of the Adult male population addicted to Opium would be a dire threat to our civilization and our country.

I doubt it matters much at all. Addicts with legal access to their drug (like Halsted) generally manage to be productive.

How do you explain the Chinese problem then?

But if you thought it was a problem, then you could mount a campaign to convince them to stop -- VOLUNTARILY.

It would work as well as trying to convince someone to voluntarily wake up while under anesthesia. Drugs ALTER will power. Drugs can induce all sorts of feelings that cannot be countered with reason, because they work at the basic level of physiological processes.

You cannot criminalize people's choices regarding what to do with their bodies. You don't have the right.

You know that right the government has to draft you and force you to fight? Well, the right they don't have to do that works just as well to prevent people from taking drugs. You may think they don't have the right in theory, but in practice it certainly appears that they do.


I was thinking about this issue earlier, and it occurs to me that people don't have a right to piss in the drinking water. They have a right to piss, but not where others have to drink it. Now you may argue that it's only a little piss, and you can't really taste it, and it really doesn't harm anyone, but I don't want any piss at all in my water supply. That's how I feel about drugs in the community.

Your argument on the draft doesn't hold much water. The state may *temporarily* suspend the rights of citizens for the sake of defending the nation from an existential threat to their lives and liberty.

What was the existential threat to the North during the Civil war? They drafted Irishmen off the ships and sent them to die against southern guns. While we're about it, what was the existential threat that dragged the world into world war I ? All this time I thought it was just a big ego trip.

You see the funny thing is, when you're the government, you can claim something is an "existential threat" even when it's not, and you can draft people and send them to their deaths at your discretion.

What gives them the right? Whatever it is, it also gives them the right to interfere with personal drug use. That's the difference between pragmatism and philosophy.

It may not permanently take them away for the purpose of forcibly attempting to make us better people according to the guidelines of self-appointed moralists.

It is not for the purpose of making them "better people" it's for the purpose of preventing them from turning others into "worse people." The injury is in the spreading of the meme. Stop it there, and you prevent innocent people from being harmed. It is an act of preemptive self defense. It's a lot like preventing children from playing with fire before they burn something down.

[TallDave]

They are not the same, because the dangers of mountain climbing or skydiving are capable of being seen before hand,

So are drugs. So is anything.

We license dynamite users and other dangerous substances, but the concept of licensing is hardly compatible with a "Right."

Dynamite is not illegal because people feel good when they ingest it.

How do you explain the Chinese problem then?

The same way I explain the American problem with alcohol pre-Prohibition: the disease is preferable to the cure.

It would work as well as trying to convince someone to voluntarily wake up while under anesthesia. Drugs ALTER will power. Drugs can induce all sorts of feelings that cannot be countered with reason, because they work at the basic level of physiological processes.

The same is true of hunger, fear, grief, sex, love. Free will is never perfectly free, but it remains nonetheless.

What was the existential threat to the North during the Civil war?

Irrespective of the merits of any particular situation, as a general rule the temporary ability of a state to draft citizens might reasonably co-exist with liberty. The main purpose of a state is to protect the rights of its citizens, which it cannot do if it cannot defend itself.

If you fear that states are abusing this power, why are you so eager to hand them other powers which they are also likely to abuse?

It is not for the purpose of making them "better people" it's for the purpose of preventing them from turning others into "worse people."

No, you're taking away those other people's rights too. Who are you to decide what mistakes they will be allowed to make?

Really, this line of argument is differs very little from someone saying "Criticism of our leaders or their policies is damaging to the country, therefore it should be illegal." Unless someone is being directly harmed, no one should be allowed to decide what's best for everyone else. Such a notion cannot be consonant with liberty.

[Diogenes]

They are not the same, because the dangers of mountain climbing or skydiving are capable of being seen before hand,

So are drugs. So is anything.

An assertion not supported by evidence. You would have us believe that all the poor saps that turned into walking zombies knew before the fact that this was where that road led. The more obvious answer is that they could NOT see the danger before the fact.

We license dynamite users and other dangerous substances, but the concept of licensing is hardly compatible with a "Right."

Dynamite is not illegal because people feel good when they ingest it.

???????????????? Is that like, a joke, or something???????

How do you explain the Chinese problem then?

The same way I explain the American problem with alcohol pre-Prohibition: the disease is preferable to the cure.

As I asserted before. I don't think you can comprehend the scope of the disease. 25% addiction nationwide would be a horrible condition, and one of which I think you would not be so tolerant.

It would work as well as trying to convince someone to voluntarily wake up while under anesthesia. Drugs ALTER will power. Drugs can induce all sorts of feelings that cannot be countered with reason, because they work at the basic level of physiological processes.

The same is true of hunger, fear, grief, sex, love. Free will is never perfectly free, but it remains nonetheless.

The difference being that these occur naturally, as opposed to artificially, like pumping yourself full of mood altering drugs. How real are artificial emotions or artificial willpower?

What was the existential threat to the North during the Civil war?

Irrespective of the merits of any particular situation, as a general rule the temporary ability of a state to draft citizens might reasonably co-exist with liberty. The main purpose of a state is to protect the rights of its citizens, which it cannot do if it cannot defend itself.

This is the most sensible thing you've said in this entire discussion, and you have inadvertently shown you do comprehend my argument, albeit it had to be drawn out of you by guile. You have made my point for me. The state cannot defend anyone's rights unless it is capable of doing so. Good, we agree on that.

Now I argue, as before, that a drug addiction level ~ 25% constitutes a dire threat of the ability of the state to defend itself or anyone else. I further argue, that if allowed to grow unchecked, addiction will inevitably grow to 25 % and beyond as it did in our test case example, China.

Your argument seems to be that it won't, and that even if it does, people have a right to do it anyway. Again, my argument. No state or society can survive such a thing, and it therefore constitutes a threat that must be kept in check.

If you fear that states are abusing this power, why are you so eager to hand them other powers which they are also likely to abuse?

I advocate no such thing. I ask for no new powers for the state. Indeed, I feel they should be kept as minimal as possible. I simply regard the role of drug interdiction to be within the normal mandate of government to protect the people from other people intending (perhaps inadvertently) to do them ill.

It is not for the purpose of making them "better people" it's for the purpose of preventing them from turning others into "worse people."

No, you're taking away those other people's rights too. Who are you to decide what mistakes they will be allowed to make?

I am a person who has put up with enough from hedonistic lotus eaters and have had my fill of putting up with them. If they want to live in narcoland, then they can go there and dope themselves up. I regard them as a threat to myself and others, and do not care to indulge their dangerous habits. I regard them the same way as irresponsible campers, lighting fires here and there that if not put out will eventually engulf all of us. It is amazing to me that you and others do not see the danger and you have the hindsight advantage of China as an example.

Really, this line of argument is differs very little from someone saying "Criticism of our leaders or their policies is damaging to the country, therefore it should be illegal."

The difference is the founders had the advantage of hindsight regarding the criticism of leaders, and knew it was necessary for good government. We have the advantage of hindsight regarding drugs being damaging and destructive because of the example of China. They are not comparable, and the analogy makes no sense at all.

Unless someone is being directly harmed, no one should be allowed to decide what's best for everyone else.

How many hairs do we need to split to figure out what "directly harmed" is? Again, we are back to that human fallacy of drawing artificial boundaries where none in fact exist. While we're talking about "directly harmed" we have about 35,000 people killed each year by drunk driving, and yet that isn't "directly harmed" enough to stir society out of it's slumber of apathy regarding it.

Such a notion cannot be consonant with liberty.

The libertarian notion of liberty, is very much at odds with the meaning as understood by our founders, and most other people as well. What the founders meant by liberty is the ability to go where you pleased, say what you pleased, worship as you please, and any number of countless other ordinary things. Libertarians want to go far beyond the ordinary when they talk about "Liberty."


I mentioned this before, but I just want to be certain I understand your philosophy as clearly as I think I do.

The Netherlands finally made bestiality illegal. It occurs to me that according to Libertarian principles, no one is being directly harmed, therefore it should be perfectly legal. What say you? Is bestiality compatible with libertarian principles, or is there a hair you can split to place this conduct on the interdicted list?

[hanelyp]

To quote the late Great Paul Harvey, "Self government does not work without self discipline." Use of mind altering drugs is not only an exercise in lack of self discipline, many such drugs impair self discipline.

[TallDave]

An assertion not supported by evidence. You would have us believe that all the poor saps that turned into walking zombies knew before the fact that this was where that road led. The more obvious answer is that they could NOT see the danger before the fact.

This is the same as saying that what we need to do to avoid mass addiction is regulate and educate.

Dynamite is not illegal because people feel good when they ingest it.
--
???????????????? Is that like, a joke, or something???????

Obviously the two situations are very different -- one can cause harm to many other people, one can only "harm" the person that ingests it by affecting his mental state -- a mental state deemed illegal -- a "thought crime."

As I asserted before. I don't think you can comprehend the scope of the disease. 25% addiction nationwide would be a horrible condition, and one of which I think you would not be so tolerant.

A statement not supported by the evidence. Most drugs were only made illegal in the 20th century, many addictive substances are already used by more than that percentage of people, and most addicts can function reasonably well.

How real are artificial emotions or artificial willpower?

Ask someone taking Prozac or lithium.

No state or society can survive such a thing,

And yet we do, every day. So does the Netherlands, just on a broader scale.

I ask for no new powers for the state.

But you do, you insist the state be allowed to control what we, as free-willed, well-informed people of sound mind, choose to ingest.

How many hairs do we need to split to figure out what "directly harmed" is?

None, it has a clear meaning: an action that harms someone. The hair-splitting starts when you try to make indirect harm illegal.

we have about 35,000 people killed each year by drunk driving, and yet that isn't "directly harmed" enough to stir society out of it's slumber of apathy regarding it.

Huh? Drunk driving is illegal because it directly harms people. Is your complaint that we haven't re-enacted Prohibition?

The difference is the founders had the advantage of hindsight regarding the criticism of leaders, and knew it was necessary for good government. We have the advantage of hindsight regarding drugs being damaging and destructive because of the example of China. They are not comparable, and the analogy makes no sense at all.

The analogy makes perfect sense: you are talking, essentially, about "thought crimes" in both instances. In fact, Communist revolutionaries used your exact reasoning in arguing that free speech and property rights were outdated concepts that we needed to evolve past for the good of the People and the State. Mao's book had a whole chapter on "Correcting Mistaken Ideas."

China...China...China

I don't know why you go on and on about the "China example" as though it proves anything. China's population was terribly poor by our standards and largely ignorant of opium's harmful effects, the opium was forced on them by more advanced Europeans, and even so Chinese civilization didn't exactly collapse over the 200 years of the opium trade. Their alleged mass addiction was only a footnote to the horrors they experienced this century at the hands of the Japanese and the Communists.

Do you know who actually succeeding in finally freeing China from opium addiction? Hint: he had a little red book.

The Mao Zedong government is generally credited with eradicating both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using unrestrained repression and social reform. Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops.

As always, the cure was worse than the disease.

Is bestiality compatible with libertarian principles,

It's generally cruel to the animal. While animal rights are generally subjugated to human needs, sexual use isn't generally recognized as a legitimate reason to cause animals discomfort. To the extent the animal is not made uncomfortable, it's disgusting but not especially immoral except from a public health standpoint.

[Diogenes]

An assertion not supported by evidence. You would have us believe that all the poor saps that turned into walking zombies knew before the fact that this was where that road led. The more obvious answer is that they could NOT see the danger before the fact.

This is the same as saying that what we need to do to avoid mass addiction is regulate and educate.

I am in favor of education and regulation (by interdiction).

Dynamite is not illegal because people feel good when they ingest it.
--
???????????????? Is that like, a joke, or something???????

Obviously the two situations are very different -- one can cause harm to many other people, one can only "harm" the person that ingests it by affecting his mental state -- a mental state deemed illegal -- a "thought crime."

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.

As I asserted before. I don't think you can comprehend the scope of the disease. 25% addiction nationwide would be a horrible condition, and one of which I think you would not be so tolerant.

A statement not supported by the evidence. Most drugs were only made illegal in the 20th century, many addictive substances are already used by more than that percentage of people, and most addicts can function reasonably well.

So says a study. The reality I have seen shows a very different perspective. Drug addicts become a threat to themselves and everyone around them. They will steal or extort anything they can get their hands on to buy more drugs.

How real are artificial emotions or artificial willpower?

Ask someone taking Prozac or lithium.

No state or society can survive such a thing,

And yet we do, every day. So does the Netherlands, just on a broader scale.

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.

I ask for no new powers for the state.

But you do, you insist the state be allowed to control what we, as free-willed, well-informed people of sound mind, choose to ingest.

You are mistaken in several ways. 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.

Secondly, past experience has repeatedly shown such people to be a threat to themselves and everyone around them. Their reckless irresponsibility causes suffering to others and requires others to pay for their indulgences.

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." It is a specific category of interdiction and for the purposes of a well established and necessary public good.

Fourthly, these are not new powers for the state. They are powers the state has always possessed, and are in fact quite appropriate.

How many hairs do we need to split to figure out what "directly harmed" is?

None, it has a clear meaning: an action that harms someone. The hair-splitting starts when you try to make indirect harm illegal.

You can hair split the term "indirect harm" as well. As far as i'm concerned, anyone who induces anyone else to use drugs has committed an immediate and direct harm to that individual. As for the indirect harms such as stealing to support a drug habit, and the shirking of responsibility which others have to pay for, I don't care if something is indirect or not, if the consequences are bad enough, it needs to stop.

we have about 35,000 people killed each year by drunk driving, and yet that isn't "directly harmed" enough to stir society out of it's slumber of apathy regarding it.

Huh? Drunk driving is illegal because it directly harms people. Is your complaint that we haven't re-enacted Prohibition?

My complaint is that we are far too indulgent of people consuming a drug and killing people because they can no longer control themselves appropriately. Direct harm is unquestionable in this case.

The difference is the founders had the advantage of hindsight regarding the criticism of leaders, and knew it was necessary for good government. We have the advantage of hindsight regarding drugs being damaging and destructive because of the example of China. They are not comparable, and the analogy makes no sense at all.

The analogy makes perfect sense: you are talking, essentially, about "thought crimes" in both instances.

Really? What thought crime?

In fact, Communist revolutionaries used your exact reasoning in arguing that free speech and property rights were outdated concepts that we needed to evolve past for the good of the People and the State. Mao's book had a whole chapter on "Correcting Mistaken Ideas."

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. Since that is obviously not the case, the comparison is simply false. Pulling out the ole "Well the commies did it too" accusation is simply an attempt to emotionalize the argument because it can't be won on it's merits.

China...China...China

I don't know why you go on and on about the "China example" as though it proves anything. China's population was terribly poor by our standards and largely ignorant of opium's harmful effects,

EVERYONE is ignorant of dangerous drugs effects, and after using them they BECOME POOR. (if they weren't already.) I don't see any important distinction here. Humans unaware of the consequences of tampering with their physiological processes. Yup, seems like the same thing to me.

the opium was forced on them by more advanced Europeans, and even so Chinese civilization didn't exactly collapse over the 200 years of the opium trade. Their alleged mass addiction was only a footnote to the horrors they experienced this century at the hands of the Japanese and the Communists.

You are seriously arguing that the misery suffered because of drug use doesn't matter because the Japanese raping and pillaging was worse? Good thing for you that those Japanese came along and rescued your argument, else you'd have to grasp for straws! Could it be that opium so effectively hollowed out China's ability to defend itself that it was able to be taken by the smaller nation?

Do you know who actually succeeding in finally freeing China from opium addiction? Hint: he had a little red book.

I find it ironic that you use the word "freeing" regarding opium addiction. It implies that you do understand that the people held in it's thrall are in a sort of bondage. That Mao Tse Tung killed drug addicts\dealers is well known, and it is in fact what I predict will happen anytime a sufficient portion of any population becomes addicted. There will always rise a dictatorial strongman to seize control because those who would fight him are unable to do so because they are too busy getting high.

Since you mentioned this, perhaps you can now catch a hint of how drug addiction (as I have repeatedly tried to explain previously) is an eventual threat to freedom, not the exercise thereof.

The Mao Zedong government is generally credited with eradicating both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using unrestrained repression and social reform. Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops.

As always, the cure was worse than the disease.

The disease begat this cure. It will always begat this cure. This cure is merely the second stage of the disease. That's what I have been repeatedly trying to tell you!

Is bestiality compatible with libertarian principles,

It's generally cruel to the animal. While animal rights are generally subjugated to human needs, sexual use isn't generally recognized as a legitimate reason to cause animals discomfort. To the extent the animal is not made uncomfortable, it's disgusting but not especially immoral except from a public health standpoint.

I would venture to say that 99.9% of the instances of bestiality in the Netherlands involved the enthusiastic cooperation of male dogs and horses. (and women) I find it peculiar that you can argue the animals are somehow "discomforted" when in fact they are willing participants.

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?

Is your faith in Libertarian principles shaken, or are you afraid of the political ramifications of endorsing such behavior as philosophically acceptable?

[TallDave]

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Really? What thought crime?

An illegal mental state, of course.

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.

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?

EVERYONE is ignorant of dangerous drugs effects

What? How do you figure? They can't read?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Fourthly, these are not new powers for the state.

It took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal.

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.

[Diogenes]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. "

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

[TallDave]

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.

Very silly. Drugs aren't poisonous at therapeutic levels, they just induce a pleasing mental state. Many people use them recreationally their whole lives without ill effect. If I give you a substance and say "Here, this induces a pleasing mental state" then you can choose to ingest it or not. As with all decisions in life, you must live with the consequences.

Giving people stuff that wrecks their lives and/or kills them is a direct harm.

By that argument if I sell you a car and you drive it off a bridge, I've harmed you. Not a serious notion.

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?

They certainly can, depending on the person and the choices they make. You see the problem now? Some people will make bad choices regardless. Making laws about the ways people can screw their lives up can't fix that problem -- unless you install a totalitarian gov't that controls every aspect of life.

Don't you mean "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes? "

So you believe "your eyes" over scientific studies? This is again not a serious notion. You seem bent on proving your case has little rational basis.

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.

That isn't a freedom of speech issue. That's conspiracy to commit murder and arson. It's not remotely the same as telling people what they can or cannot ingest to induce feelings they enjoy.

...and there goes free speech in Diogenesland. See how easy it is to slide down the slippery slope?

A non sequitur.

Loss of one right tends to lead to loss of another.

What has reading got to do with it? Reading and listening will not educate you as to the dangers you face.

I guess if you don't believe in studies you might not believe you can learn from reading either, but objectively that's clearly an absurd idea. You don't have to try drugs to know the meaning of "addictive."

China had nationwide Legal opium for a hundred years.

And they were fine, just as the Netherlands will be. Totalitarianism was incidental; it struck much of the region without regard to drug use. China's problems went back to internal divisions which led to the abandonment of modernization and esp. shipping technology. The notion drug use will cause society to collapse is fanciful, and has no empirical support to speak of.

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

So are masturbation and homosexuality. At least one of those has often been persecuted too.

As with homosexuality, there may have been reasonable arguments against the idleness of drug use a couple hundred years ago. Today we are far too rich and productive for drugs or homosexuality to be reasonably proscripted.

And yet Tobacco and other drugs are interdicted and regulated without one.

Tobacco and alcohol are both regulated. Neither is illegal. The WOD is unconstitutional, a result of the Progressive movement which regarded the Constitution an obstructionist anachronism.

You are still trying to couch it in the "consent" argument, (which is just a dodge) .

Oh please. I'm not "couching" or "dodging" anything. Are you intentionally missing the point, or really having this much trouble understanding it? I answered your question in a full and reasonable way. Not every case of bestiality is the same, just as not every instance of sex between two people is the same. There isn't a "yes or no" answer that can cover whether every case is acceptable, but yes you can definitely put me down as believing not every case is something the gov't should be involved in as it may not be harming anyone.

And yes, consent matters. If you really don't understand the significance of consent and ability to consent in minors as something more than a "legal construct" then I cannot take you the least bit seriously.

[Diogenes]

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.

Very silly. Drugs aren't poisonous at therapeutic levels, they just induce a pleasing mental state. Many people use them recreationally their whole lives without ill effect. If I give you a substance and say "Here, this induces a pleasing mental state" then you can choose to ingest it or not. As with all decisions in life, you must live with the consequences.

Does that pleasing mental state include extreme paranoia, a skeletal physique, sunken eyes, ruined teeth and sores all over their body from scratching "meth bugs", and men wanting to trade bj for another fix ?

Giving people stuff that wrecks their lives and/or kills them is a direct harm.

By that argument if I sell you a car and you drive it off a bridge, I've harmed you. Not a serious notion.

The analogy would be correct if the car drove you off a bridge. That's what drugs do. They drive you off a bridge.

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?

They certainly can, depending on the person and the choices they make. You see the problem now? Some people will make bad choices regardless. Making laws about the ways people can screw their lives up can't fix that problem -- unless you install a totalitarian gov't that controls every aspect of life.

We are doing a statistical analysis. In terms of people involved, and degree of destruction, the occasional video gamer that goes off his rocker and kills himself or others is extremely rare when compared to the 1,000,000 times the number of people who do it because of drugs. In any case, we're still talking about an addictive behavior. For the Gamer, the video game is his drug. (anything to release serotonin.)

Don't you mean "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes? "

So you believe "your eyes" over scientific studies? This is again not a serious notion. You seem bent on proving your case has little rational basis.

I believe the "Scientific Studies" that contradict my own (and extensive) personal experience with drug addicts, just as much as I believe the "Scientific Studies" that prove conclusively that man made global warming will kill us all. My experience with these studies are that they are simply pushing an agenda, and cannot be accepted at face value without an exhaustive review of their data and means of collecting it.

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.

That isn't a freedom of speech issue. That's conspiracy to commit murder and arson. It's not remotely the same as telling people what they can or cannot ingest to induce feelings they enjoy.

Okay, now you are trying to game the discussion here. I said that if freedom of speech were killing thousands of people per year, I wouldn't support it. It isn't, and therefore I support it. You are arguing that usage of drugs is a "Freedom", and therefore ought to be protected like a freedom. I argue that usage of drugs IS killing thousands of people every year, and therefore I'm not going to support the "Freedom" to engage in this behavior.

...and there goes free speech in Diogenesland. See how easy it is to slide down the slippery slope?

A non sequitur.

Loss of one right tends to lead to loss of another.

If the rights are inter-reinforcing. I would argue that of necessity, a "right" must be inter-reinforcing with other rights. The "right" to use drugs which alter thinking and will power, cannot seemingly be useful to protect any other right.

What has reading got to do with it? Reading and listening will not educate you as to the dangers you face.

I guess if you don't believe in studies you might not believe you can learn from reading either, but objectively that's clearly an absurd idea. You don't have to try drugs to know the meaning of "addictive."

Well, I Only have to read a book to know how to fly a helicopter. Book knowledge is exactly the same thing as experience. I will be fully prepared for anything that may happen while i'm trying to fly because i've read a book and fully understand the dangers.

China had nationwide Legal opium for a hundred years.

And they were fine, just as the Netherlands will be. Totalitarianism was incidental; it struck much of the region without regard to drug use. China's problems went back to internal divisions which led to the abandonment of modernization and esp. shipping technology. The notion drug use will cause society to collapse is fanciful, and has no empirical support to speak of.

Were this true, one wonders why Mao and the Emperors were so intent on getting rid of it? If it causes no problem, why bother? Maybe they wanted to "Improve" people?

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

So are masturbation and homosexuality. At least one of those has often been persecuted too.

As with homosexuality, there may have been reasonable arguments against the idleness of drug use a couple hundred years ago. Today we are far too rich and productive for drugs or homosexuality to be reasonably proscripted.

We shall not remain so very long if such things are not proscribed. Did it never occur to you that one of the reasons we became prosperous was because of the ethical and moral standards which have been under assault now for the last 80 years? The spoiled rotten children of the wealthy are destroying the machinery that made them so, but this is a repeating pattern throughout the history of socialist movements.

Homosexuality became proscribed because of it's incidence of disease. (both mental and physical) Homosexuals were more likely to molest young boy children, and far more likely to carry horrible diseases. That it still exists tends to indicate there must be a genetic component that confers more positive benefit somehow than it does negative.

And yet Tobacco and other drugs are interdicted and regulated without one.

Tobacco and alcohol are both regulated. Neither is illegal. The WOD is unconstitutional, a result of the Progressive movement which regarded the Constitution an obstructionist anachronism.

Now THIS argument I find persuasive. (That it is unconstitutional.) For the most part, no one has been arguing that (at least in the case of the Federal Government) there is no justification in our constitution for the Federal Government involving itself in a domestic drug war. (At least not one that has been explained to my satisfaction.) Internationally, yes. Domestically? It appears not.

You are still trying to couch it in the "consent" argument, (which is just a dodge) .

Oh please. I'm not "couching" or "dodging" anything. Are you intentionally missing the point, or really having this much trouble understanding it? I answered your question in a full and reasonable way. Not every case of bestiality is the same, just as not every instance of sex between two people is the same. There isn't a "yes or no" answer that can cover whether every case is acceptable, but yes you can definitely put me down as believing not every case is something the gov't should be involved in as it may not be harming anyone.

And yes, consent matters. If you really don't understand the significance of consent and ability to consent in minors as something more than a "legal construct" then I cannot take you the least bit seriously.

I am pointing out that you are showing cultural bias. In Mexico, 12 year olds can consent. This makes the distinction between Mexico and the US a "Legal issue" not a philosophical one. In some Arab countries, they don't even need consent.

I'm getting the impression that your Libertarian perspective is somehow bounded by laws and rules that are not obvious. Why are you putting an age threshold on the application of Libertarian principles? (you see, we're out in the weeds where you think your boundaries are.)

If you're arguing that the young cannot consent, are you suggesting that they are simply uninformed enough to give consent? Are you suggesting that they might be unintentionally physically harmed by giving consent? Are you suggesting that they don't understand what they are getting into?

These are my arguments against drugs!

What argument can you suggest from "Prohibiting" young people from giving consent that does not also work for "prohibiting" any age people from experimenting with drugs? I've seen brilliant 5 year olds, and idiot 50 year olds.