Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 05/25/2006 6:51:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
You said this: You've called me a bigot a bizillion times, said I'm like the KKK, and that the WOD is like Jim Crow.
In response to what I wrote, which is this: but not only didn't I write it, I didn't even use any of the words in your quote, except one, in my entire post to which you replied. Got that underlined part? "... in my entire post to which you replied." Here it is again, just because I care: "in my entire post to which you replied."
[In reference to calling me a bigot...There you go - lying again! Twice! I'm not hiding, and I didn't use the word.]
WTF????? Are you insane? You know people can read your posts.
One more time: I didn't use the word in the post to which you replied.
Completely unable to show how someone making nerve gas just to possess it is any harm to you. One gram of plutonium properly stored never hurt anyone.
This is called, "moving the goal posts." You asked me whether I would criminalize plutonium possession, or nerve gas possession. I responded. Now you come out of left field with an accusation that I am "completely unable to show how" nerve gas possession or plutonium possession presents any harm.
You are running wild with assumptions. Bigot. You have no consistency of thought...
Wow! That's a really cogent, logical analysis you've got going there! One thought leads right to the next, in a perfect dialectical lockstep! It isn't like a rabid animal lashing out at the air in all directions at all!
This is called, "moving the goal posts."
And that is called a direct analogy to your entire argument. Again the beauty of an analogy is when the target of that analogy sees the connection.
I'm now backing away slowly and avoiding eye contact.
Given the fact that I was obviously paraphrasing you, in order to point out your absurdity with satire, I'd have to agree. Funny how you don't recognize yourself in the mirror when parodied.
As you didn't mention being for legalizing all drugs in your last post, I wasn't sure if you still had that position (using your new "last post - only post" rule). Therefore let me start a completely new question. Do you want to deregulate antibiotics?
LOL! You're really a piece of work! You are, of course, free to cite any post I have made, but it's certainly odd for you to wait until I don't call you a bigot in a post, for you to then claim that the only thing I can do is that - a "one trick pony" as you put it. In any case, when I specifically state that I didn't say something in a particular post, you have no basis to claim outrage that I did, in fact, say it in other posts. It's almost like you don't comprehend the written word. Well, can't or won't, maybe, but certainly don't.
Again the beauty of an analogy is when the target of that analogy sees the connection.
I'm certainly not harboring any illusions that you will ever see the striking parallels between your own position on drugs, and the corresponding ones regarding guns and black people that I repeatedly cited and expanded upon - from the sweeping generalizations and the inseparability of distinct issues, all the way down to a formative trauma in your youth.
I'm now backing away slowly and avoiding eye contact.
But you'll be back for more, no doubt. It's almost like you're addicted to posting to me - you said you'd stop, but you keep coming back for more. Ironically, addiction to drugs is something you would lock another away for life after only one or a few times. I wonder what the difference is between your posting habits and a drug user's addiction? You have already admitted to feeling a guilty pleasure posting to me. Does it give you a rush? When would it be appropriate to violently deprive someone else (other than you, of course) of their rights, if they admitted to symptoms and expressed behaviors like these?
For starters,the thievery, broken lives, and dead bodies. Anything else you can't figure out?
Again, that would be when the vast majority of them started stealing and killing. Gosh its easy answering these questions. You should try answering questions some time. Its not that hard. Funny how I'm the one that can't stop - who's writing your posts?
If 90% of gun owners committed armed robbery and murder with their guns, I could no longer argue for the right to be armed. But as an armed citizenry is extremely important to a free society, and the percentage of citizens who commit crime with a weapon is so low, its a strong case of perception meeting reality.
Now let's assume that drugs are legalized. One of us would end up being wrong.
-If crime rates dropped and no vast infusion of government money was required to fix the problem, I would admit I was wrong and solely concentrate on the morality of overindulgence as a matter of personal responsibility. It wouldn't change my mind on it being a human right, but it would change my mind on societies need to curb a harmful behavior.
-What would your position be if crime rates soared? Is there any level of mayhem that would change your mind, or would the right to drugs be all important?
I don't doubt that you fully believe that decriminalization would lead to less crime. But I'm curious about what level of crime you would be willing to tolerate if you were wrong? I'd appreciate a straight forward answer.
As the majority of people think you are wrong, you may want to think about a fall back position, should your great social experiment go awry. I think you have some responsibility there. One of my worries is that "legalization" would end up being like "socialism" where those advocating it are more wedded to their high-minded ideals than reality, and that no amount of failure can dissuade them. It's just never been done right yet.
You're still blind - and bigoted. There are drug users who don't steal, whose lives (and those of their families) remain whole, and who never killed anyone - but you refuse to admit they even exist, and in any case want to throw them in jail all the same. They just do drugs for the good feelings they get, or for the bad feelings they don't get, when they're high - much as you enjoy posting to me, but as far as you are concerned, they are all thieves, broken, and murderers or overdose victims.
It's astonishing how you simply can not see the parallels to blacks and guns. You have debated gun grabbers. How would you respond to someone who enjoys posting, but fully supports total civilian gun prohibition, and you asked for the difference between your love of shooting sports and his love of posting, and his reply was "For starters, the armed robbery, broken lives, and dead bodies. Anything else you can't figure out?"
It's that analogy thing ... let's see if you can get it. Rise to your own challenge!!
Once again you didn't answer a simple straight forward question.
Instead you asked a question that I had just preimptively answered. Why did you do that?
And now you are back to calling me a bigot AGAIN, as substitute. I'm very curious about this new theory of your's that your desire to continue posting is OK, but mine is a sickness. Has this tactic ever worked for you? Never mind that question. I would just appreciate an actual answer to the line of questions in my previous post.
Vast majority? Please present your evidence. How many drug users are there in the country, and how many of them are thieves and murderers? I'll bet it isn't 90%, or even 50%. But, you are the one making the claim, so it's up to you to support it.
But, that said, black males are ~6 times more likely to be criminal offenders than white males (source), and people with guns in their possession are 100% more likely to commit gun crimes than people without guns in their possession, so if one-liner statistical analysis is all it takes for you, you will have a difficult time separating the need for drug prohibition from the need for laws that restrict blacks or guns. Worse, if racism leads to a higher conviction rate or sentencing times for blacks, or if gun control laws lead to higher numbers of "gun criminals" then the statistical facts only make the case for Jim Crow and gun control laws even more persuasive - a self-fulfilling prophesy, which is not the sort of policy I would like enshrined in law.
Funny how I'm the one that can't stop - who's writing your posts?
I beg your pardon, but you're the one, not me, who has talked about "being done with me" (post #161) or "backing away slowly, eyes averted" (# 162). I've never promised to leave, and then broken that promise, as you have.
If 90% of gun owners committed armed robbery and murder with their guns, I could no longer argue for the right to be armed.
Interesting. You would strip the Second Amendment out of the Consitution, rather than locking away the violent criminals! Law and Order first, inalienable rights second. Too bad for the other 10% of non-criminal gun owners, and too bad for the rest of the non-gun-owning public, who would never become able to be gun owners in that case. Another telling admission on your part. Nearly 100% of civilian gun owners are criminals in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Sounds like you support their laws there - because only criminals need guns, right?
But as an armed citizenry is extremely important to a free society, and the percentage of citizens who commit crime with a weapon is so low, its a strong case of perception meeting reality.
There are jurisdictions where nearly 100% of gun owners are criminal - simply because guns are banned there. As it is, (illegal) drugs are banned in 100% of jurisdictions by federal law, so it's like the whole country is Washington DC, and I'm nevertheless arguing for gun decriminalization.
Now let's assume that drugs are legalized. One of us would end up being wrong.
Now, at least we're getting somewhere:
-If crime rates dropped and no vast infusion of government money was required to fix the problem, I would admit I was wrong and solely concentrate on the morality of overindulgence as a matter of personal responsibility.
Note that right now, you have a vast infusion of government money, namely, the cost of the drug war: the DEA, police, customs and FBI to the extent the latter investigate drug crimes (as opposed to other crimes), the direct costs of trying and incarcerating drug users, their costs of hiring lawyers to defend themselves, and the indirect costs of taking otherwise productive people out of society and into prison. I think all told it's something like $50 billion a year. Do you suppose you could afford a fifth or a tenth of that, to go to treatment and medical costs for addicts who lose control?
It wouldn't change my mind on it being a human right,
Meaning, you don't think people own their own bodies, and can do to them what they wish. Instead, I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) you think that living human bodies are the property of The State, who then has an interest in protecting their property, by limiting what people can do to themselves.
but it would change my mind on societies need to curb a harmful behavior.
Well, that's nice. (For a change.) I think you can't see the difference between the harm that drugs bring, directly, vs. the harm drug prohibition brings. I believe much of the misery associated with drugs today comes from the prohibition, rather than the drugs themselves. (Consider, once again, gun ownership in Washington DC. It's hard to imagine that a place like Colorado could possibly exist, where lots of people own guns, and very, very few of them use them to murder people or shoot up schools.)
-What would your position be if crime rates soared? Is there any level of mayhem that would change your mind, or would the right to drugs be all important?
First of all, I think crime rates would drop for many reasons. Prices would go down, so to the extent someone simply must steal to support their habit, they would have to steal less. But also, all the gang activity associated with criminal dealing would vanish, smuggling, etc., because people could grow their own or buy it from legal sources. Actually, I think some of the gang members would remain criminal, and would focus on something else, but that merely indicates that the problem isn't drugs, it's criminals. But secondly, my answer to your question is, even if crime went up, I'd focus law enforcement on those crimes. Wouldn't it be nice if the JBTs went after murderers with the same gusto that they presently use to go after pot smokers?
I don't doubt that you fully believe that decriminalization would lead to less crime. But I'm curious about what level of crime you would be willing to tolerate if you were wrong? I'd appreciate a straight forward answer.
Asked and answered: focus on the other crimes. (But you're right, I do think crime would go down.) I will also cite that violent crime rates dropped when Prohibition was repealed. Do you have any explanation for that? I do.
As the majority of people think you are wrong, you may want to think about a fall back position, should your great social experiment go awry.
That's fair, but I would put the same criterion to you, except that your great social experiment is the Drug War. I submit to you that it has gone awry, and that drug-dog searches of elementary schools, that asset forfeiture abuses committed by police, that paramilitary raids of cancer patients, that fatal wrong-address no-knock raids, that the militarization of our police forces, that piss tests for getting a job - and billions of dollars of taxpayer monies expended as described above ... are evidence of a massive social experiment gone very, very awry. You still support these things as necessary side effects that are a part of your social engineering to get people to stop using drugs. What would it take to convince you you are mistaken?
I think you have some responsibility there. One of my worries is that "legalization" would end up being like "socialism" where those advocating it are more wedded to their high-minded ideals than reality, and that no amount of failure can dissuade them. It's just never been done right yet.
On the contrary, there are several places that have dabbled in drug decriminalization: traffic tickets for pot possession in this country (at least at the local or state level), pot cafes in Holland and elsewhere, needle parks, etc. The results aren't nearly as ugly as the drug warriors warn, much as gun grabbers always promise "blood in the streets" if shall-issue passes somewhere, even though it has never come to pass. But the gun grabbers essentially never admit they are wrong, despite mountains of evidence against them. Especially the true believers.
They exist. Its a matter of statistics. There are people who drive 120mph on residential streets that haven't caused accidents, maimed people, or killed anyone. That isn't a convincing argument to me to raise residential speed limits to 120 mph.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
"I completely agree, because until men are sent to prison, they are model fathers. Perhaps we can just set up prison childcare, where the cons can nurture our young?"
ROFLMAO!
I was thinking maybe we need to build housing and playgrounds around the prisons to allow for conjugal visits AND allow these folks in prisons to raise their kids. /sarc
Colson would be the first to yap about how these drug offenders need to have their kids taken away if they were NOT incarcerated.
Interesting. You would strip the Second Amendment out of the Consitution, rather than locking away the violent criminals! Law and Order first, inalienable rights second. Too bad for the other 10% of non-criminal gun owners, and too bad for the rest of the non-gun-owning public, who would never become able to be gun owners in that case. Another telling admission on your part. Nearly 100% of civilian gun owners are criminals in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Sounds like you support their laws there - because only criminals need guns, right?
From your answer here, it is clear that no matter the connection between drug use and crime that I provide, you will not connect one with the other. If a 90% correlation isn't enough for you then nothing will be. Drug use to you is a sacred right. So important that defending it is well worth any evil that may become of it.
Our difference is that my perception of rights meets reality and yours doesn't. The reality is that the right to be armed, the right of religion, and the right of free speech, are all beneficial to society, and all begin to get curbed at the point they do unacceptable harm to others. This curbing is a balance of benefit against harm. As drug use results (from the admissions of the users) in a great deal of harm, and no benefit that could not otherwise be attained legally, it fails to make the cut as a sacred right.
I don't see the Rosy picture you describe, but it is a wonderful place to look. Dutch society was very homogeneous and different from American society, so you have to compare pre with post Dutch statistics. There is also a matter of watching progression. Very generous welfare appeared to work wonderfully in the first few years. Finally, the Dutch don't have the only model of open drug use. The Chinese, Somalis, and a few others have had very negative results, so which example do you use? You ask me to be reasonable, but where exactly are you being reasonable? You want me to look at statistics, but then say that statistics really don't matter to you because drug use is a "inalienable right".
Why would someone spend time building an argument against the benefits of legalization, when your fallback position is that the benefit/harm relationship simply doesn't matter?
Let me try again. Is there any level of harm, if definitively shown to be a result of drug use by YOUR OWN standards, that would dissuade you? If your answer is "No", then there is really no point in discussing benefits versus harm.
If 90% of gun owners, in a non-skewed population, committed murder, I would admit that my perception of reality might be wrong. That is called intellectual honesty. Do try to attempt some level of this in your response.
You need to start a Constitutional Amendment process. I'm sure you don't think it should be necessary, but given our history with slavery, etc. you'll just have to accept it. If I understand your positions correctly it needs to say:
All behaviors and actions are hereby legal despite any probability of resulting harm, danger, or bodily injury. Only actions that actually result in direct harm will be punishable.
That should cover it. No more regulations of any kind, no traffic laws, no more building codes, no limits on anything of any kind.
I predict you will fail miserably, at which point you will have to decide whether to undertake an insurrection, or accept curbs in a republican democracy. Let me know how it goes.
Look, I just realized that there is zero chance of your actually answering my question, so let me propose the following.
You need to start a Constitutional Amendment process. I'm sure you don't think it should be necessary, but given our history with slavery, etc. you'll just have to accept it. If I understand your positions correctly it needs to say:
All behaviors and actions are hereby legal despite any probability of resulting harm, danger, or bodily injury. Only actions that actually result in direct harm will be punishable.
That should cover it. No more regulations of any kind, no traffic laws, no more building codes, no limits on anything of any kind.
I predict you will fail miserably, at which point you will have to decide whether to undertake an insurrection, or accept curbs in a republican democracy. Let me know how it goes.
Just a side note on the above. As it is you that wants to massively change the laws, and I'm presenting the majority position, you might want to try to disprove it yourself. You can hold out on me doing days of research, but I frankly don't need to, to win this argument, and I don't think any statistic on this is capable of changing your mind.
On the other hand, if you had statistics from a non-interested party, with solid research, showing that only 3% (for instance) of crack users ever committed crimes to pay for their drugs, then I would find that very compelling toward legalization, even though I still wouldn't consider it a right.
If you could stop being disingenuous for 30 seconds you might grow a little.
I just love how you are able to toss in a little insult or condescension into nearly every post. You obviously have some deep need to do this, and it doesn't harm me, so knock yourself out.
Stating that people that commit gun crimes have guns 100% of the time is a nonsensical comparison, and you know it.
Although this argument is literally true, it is also nonsensical most of the time (and I do know it); it is nevertheless an argument used by the gun grabbers to ban all guns from all civilians and is therefore reasonable to present in analogy. However, there are a few jurisdictions where guns are already essentially totally banned (Washington DC, Chicago) and in those places, then, essentially 100% of civilian gun ownership is criminal, and the argument is fully applicable. According to your own criteria regarding drugs, in those places there is zero redeeming value to gun ownership statistically, therefore, the gun bans are fully justified - and by extension ought to be expanded to other jurisdictions where gun possession is legal but nevertheless much more heavily associated with criminal activity. This makes your position indistinguishable from the gun grabbers, on at least this point.
It is safe to say that possessing a gun never drove anyone to commit a crime.
Although a lot of gun grabbers say exactly this.
On the other hand the most common answer to "why" from criminals committing armed robbery is "drugs".
LOL! First of all it's not "drugs" but "lack of drugs" which they seek to remedy by buying some, but they need money, which is why they rob. (So, drug users who possess drugs are LESS likely to rob than those who don't.) Whoops on your part.
Secondly, I have already pointed out that drug prices would drop if they were decriminalized. For example, the street value of pot should be approximately zero - it's a WEED and would grow nearly anywhere, like dandelions, if that were somehow permissable.
Thirdly, you got all indignant about the "nonsensical comparison" about 100% of gun criminals being gun owners, and yet your statement above contains the same fallacy. In particular: The correct question (to you, at least) isn't whether most gun criminals are gun owners, but rather whether most gun owners are gun criminals, that would sway you to or away from the gun rights/gun prohibition position. In the same way, it is the same nonsensical argument to say that most armed robbers are drug users; the correct argument is whether most drug users are armed robbers, to sway you to or away from the "drug rights"/drug prohibition position. To make the example even more clear, suppose 99% of rapists owned Levi jeans. Then in that case your question shouldn't be whether we should ban those jeans on that fact, but rather on what fraction of all Levis owners were rapists - presumably a miniscule minority. Now, I'm willing to allow that you merely were unaware that you used the same fallacy as the one you got indignant about my (intentionally) using, and not outright hypocritical, so I'll refrain from saying, what was that? Ah yes - "If you could stop being disingenuous for 30 seconds you might grow a little."
That is a real correlation that you refuse to accept.
Correlation != causation. You know that, right?
From your answer here, it is clear that no matter the connection between drug use and crime that I provide, you will not connect one with the other. If a 90% correlation isn't enough for you then nothing will be.
Once again, correlation != causation, once again, I don't think it's 90%, and once again I think the burden of proof rests on you. (More about which in a later post.) To answer your question, you would have to convince me that (gun ownership, drug use) has no possibility of non-harmful use, as I made the case for nerve gas and plutonium. Incidentally, so long as drug use is criminal itself, it is 100% associated with crime, which makes for a circular argument. (All drug users are criminals, by definition, and therefore, drug use is associated with crime, which justifies the laws against them.)
Drug use to you is a sacred right.
That would be "body sovreignty is a sacred right" to you. I own my body, not The State. Other things follow from there.
So important that defending it is well worth any evil that may become of it.
There you go again, confusing violent crimes with drug use. I know a lot of people who have used drugs and aren't violent criminals. But, this makes no difference to you.
Our difference is that my perception of rights meets reality and yours doesn't.
Your saying this doesn't make it so. You are susceptible to the same fallacies of the gun grabbers, as I have pointed out. Your "reality" is as flawed as theirs is, and your motivations are the same.
The reality is that the right to be armed, the right of religion, and the right of free speech, are all beneficial to society, and all begin to get curbed at the point they do unacceptable harm to others.
And another reality is that when governments start thinking that they own the bodies of their subjects, bad things happen. I could cite historical precedent for this fact, but I don't think you will grasp the relevence. Incidentally, do you think allowing people to be Muslims is "beneficial to society?" It comes from freedom of religion, after all.
This curbing is a balance of benefit against harm. As drug use results (from the admissions of the users) in a great deal of harm, and no benefit that could not otherwise be attained legally, it fails to make the cut as a sacred right.
So your position is, people must prove that something (1) has a benefit and (2) isn't even associated with, let alone causes, harm, in order for you allow it to be a right. The "Presumption of Tyranny," I'll call it. Unless someone can demonstrate (1) and (2), it should be prohibited as far as you are concerned. I wonder exactly what you think a "Free Republic" is, and why exactly you are on this site - as opposed to "Authoritarians 'R' Us." Incidentally, what keeps you from banning rock climbing, or skydiving, or bungee jumping, or car racing, or skiing, or hang gliding or any other such diversion that "has no benefit that can't be gotten in other ways" and that demonstrably injures, maims, and kills people? My own (obviously distorted, according to you) position is that so long as a behavior doesn't necessarily lead to the harm of others, people should be allowed to do what they wish, what they enjoy, what they desire - and that's what the "Free" in "Free Republic" means. Is it the "Freedom to permit provably irreplaceable and non-harmful activities?"
And your using "bigot" as a conjunction in your previous posts was what, flattery?
I’ve distilled it down pretty well, so let me try my unanswered previous posts again.
Is there any level of harm (to nondrug users), if definitively shown to be a result of drug use by YOUR OWN standards, that would dissuade you?
A “Yes” or “No” here would be appreciated. It’s not a trick question. There’s simply no point in us discussing percentages of causation, if it doesn’t matter to you at all.
Assuming from previous attempts that there is zero chance of your actually answering my question, there’s not anything left to discuss, so I propose the following.
You need to start a Constitutional Amendment process. I'm sure you don't think it should be necessary, but given our history with slavery, etc. you'll just have to accept it. If I understand your positions correctly it needs to say:
All behaviors and actions are hereby legal despite any probability of resulting harm, danger, or bodily injury. Only actions that actually result in direct harm will be punishable.
That should cover it. No more regulations of any kind, no traffic laws (against recklessness), no more building codes, no limits on anything of any kind (that are designed to prevent harm).
I predict you will fail miserably, at which point you will have to decide whether to undertake an insurrection, or accept curbs in a republican democracy. Let me know how it goes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.