Posted on 08/25/2006 6:26:19 AM PDT by cryptical
And I, like the vast majority of Americans, am far beyond needing a mommy and daddy.
Some of these folks out here seem to think that most Americans are just frothing at the mouth to lose their identifies in drugs, but are only restrained because the drugs are illegal, and so, once they're made legal, the people will pounce on the nearest drug and consume it with evil passion, losing the soul of America forever.
Bah. No doubt these folks have purchased numerous lots of Lunar property.
You ignored what I said and chose instead to whip the starch out of a red herring. My words:
Overcoming the attraction of trance inducing drugs is best pursued by debunking myths about such drugs as a means to deep spiritual experience, instant serenity, ecstatic pleasure and their ilk. Those are the lies that kill.
A steaming pile of hyperbole.
You condemn "socialism" while seeking its imposition. That places your hyperbolic posturing in question.
You just HAD to rattle the cages of the apoplectic prohibitionists, didn't you?! Expect keyboard sales to increase over the next few days as froth damage sends some of them out for new ones to respond to posts.
Good, so law enforcement has helped keep it where it has been and not let it spread worse.
Good, so law enforcement has helped keep it where it has been and not let it spread worse.
No. The WOD has had the unintended consequence of maintaining an elevated level of drug addiction. There's much better educational resources and medical resources to address the drug problem with than were available in 1914 and 1970. The WOD, aside from its failure, diverts resources and attention away from addressing the drug problem as a medical and education problem.
The goal of ending the WOD is not to solve the drug problem. It is to greatly reduce the violence problem. Then we have to buckle down and rationally address the drug problem. Addressing tobacco addiction as an education and medical problem has been quite successful. Tobacco, more addicting than heroin.
The introductory video at LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) addresses that. Introduction video. Real Media (14 mb) - MPEG-4 (23 mb)
Law enforcement doesn't cause increases in addiction, that is absurd.
Then why do you imply it does increase addiction? I certainly never implied nor said that. Gee wiz, I can imply things about you that you never said but I will not stoop to your juvenile level of discourse. I did say, "The WOD has had the unintended consequence of maintaining an elevated level of drug addiction."228 Maintain the same level of drug addiction as it was in 1914, 1970 and 2003 without the WOD the level would be less than the constant 1.3% is has been -- thus the WOD maintains the 1.3% elevated level. In other words, had the trillion-dollars in resources that have been wasted on wagging the WOD been instead redirected to addressing the drug problem as an education and medical problem the addiction rate would have decreased from 1.3%.
You raised the socialism red herring, not I.
Maintaining an elevated level?
Dance, baby!
Roscoe, what other aliases are you posting under?
It should prove entertaining.
In other country's where they treated it like a sacrament addiction went higher and things got worse by far.
You're talking about treating drug addiction as a sacrament, religious right. I'm talking about treating the drug problem as an education and medical problem. Similar to treating the tobacco addiction problem since 1990 as an education and medical problem has reduced the number of tobacco users by almost 50%. And tobacco is more addictive than heroin.
We can't approve of it because you will increase addiction a lot more and in the end if no one were addicted, we would all be better off.
In your world the Surgeon General's Warning on tobacco equates to approval, not toleration. Hey, A CA Guy, there's no law prohibiting you from shoving a broom stick up your a$$, but according to your logic that signals approval.
If only no one was addicted to drugs, but they are. Treating them as criminals is immoral. It is immoral to initiate harm/force against another person or their property. If you think the act of a person sitting in the privacy of their home doing drugs has harmed you then take the person to court and an impartial jury and try your best to convince the jury that the person's act victimized you--harmed you. After all, if that person's act harmed you then you are due restitution for your pain and suffering. Somehow I think nine out of ten times the jury will side with the defendant. I don't see how the person doing drugs in the privacy of their home harms you.
See post 231 a few posts above yours.
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.