Replies

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.

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.

And your using "bigot" as a conjunction in your previous posts was what, flattery?

It's not an insult, it's a statement of truth. Words have meanings - which you now know since I posted the definition. Whether I call you one or not doesn't change the fact of your being so, unless you stop being one. It's fundamentally different from my calling you a puppy, swatting your own vomit around, as you did me.

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?

Yes. If there is some level of absolutely unavoidable harm to others engendered by drug use, then a discussion of the harms to others vs. the merits to the one can enter, and then regulation or prohibition can be discussed. (E.g. nerve gas, and plutonium whose use have very high probability of very grave harm to others.) However, I happen to know that with the exception of PCP, using drugs brings only a vanishing probability of unavoidable harm to others, and for PCP I don't know whether the probability is very low, low, or moderate, but I do know it is less than the majority, because PCP is used by thousands each year, and there are only a few stories of someone on a PCP rampage. Alcohol, which kills ~50,000 / year, most of them the drinkers, but many of them innocents, is worse than any illegal drug - including PCP at least on a numbers level if not in probability, and yet remains legal - and so should serve as a guideline for what sort of level of harm is tolerable. Speaking of PCP, I believe that if other less hazardous drugs were legally available, demand for PCP could be brought nearly to zero.

Assuming from previous attempts that there is zero chance of your actually answering my question,

Wrong again.

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).

Of course this is a groteque straw man argument - once again. (What is it with you and logical fallacies?) I have already stated I support laws against negligence and recklessness, and I have already stated I support regulation of nerve gas and plutonium. I have also made the distinction between harm to innocent others, and harm to oneself, which you fail to make above. So you grossly misrepresent my position in the above.

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.

LOL! This is a Constitutional Republic, not a "republican democracy." But you knew that right, and are just attempting satire, right? You do know that this country was not set up as a democracy, right? Right?

Now could you afford me the courtesy of answering my questions, posed in my last post?

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?

One more thing - the Drug War brings harm to nondrug users, e.g. higher taxes, rights violations, and the occasional wrong-address no-knock raid resulting in death of innocent people. Is there any level of harm (to nondrug users), if definitively shown to be a result of the drug war by YOUR OWN standards, that would dissuade you?

I submit to you that more innocent people have been killed directly by the Drug War than by smoking pot, for starters. Yet you continue to ignore the harms of the drug war.