Posted on 06/16/2010 9:58:48 AM PDT by logician2u
I have a low tolerance for hyperbole.
If you take a psychoactive drug, enough of it, you absolutely lose your head. I have seen it.
Not necessarily, as you acknowledge, with "can become absolutely psychotic." In fact, I know of no "psychoactive" drug whose normal dose necessitates psychotic or, more to my point, assaultive behavior.
And that's what you're talking about here, isn't it? An increase in assaultive behavior, significantly greater than alcohol, due to the psychoactive properties of drug "X" at its normal dose.
For example, would heroin merit legalization, if its "assault causing" properties turned out to be less than the "assault causing" properties of alcohol?
I don’t know. I assume so, or why did he take the stuff? I believe he said they were initially for pain, then for pleasure, then he was an addict and had to take them to feel somewhat normal.
Limbaugh took massive amounts of Oxycontin, chemically almost identical to heroin. If one is legal and the other illegal, even with a prescription, is the law askew, assuming they both have the same "assault causing" properties?
“If one is legal and the other illegal, even with a prescription, is the law askew, assuming they both have the same “assault causing” properties?”
I saw the law is not askew, because if you have chronic pain, the benefit of the pain relief exceeds the deficit of the drug’s negatives.
“I have a low tolerance of hyperbole”
My recounting of our home invasion, the suicide of a close friend, and my midnight visit to an ER as a child are not at all hyperbole but absolute truth.
I don’t have much tolerance for cherry picking, either.
“And that’s what you’re talking about here, isn’t it? An increase in assaultive behavior”
An increase in assaultive behavior.
An increase in negligent behavior.
An increase in irresponsible behavior.
An increase in crazy behavior.
An increase in lazy behavior.
Cherry picking? These are real stories from my life.
“Not necessarily, as you acknowledge, with “can become absolutely psychotic.” In fact, I know of no “psychoactive” drug whose normal dose necessitates psychotic or, more to my point, assaultive behavior.”
It doesn’t necessitate assaultive behavior. It just makes it a lot more likely.
If, every time somebody dropped acid, they decided they were Superman and drove down the street backwards, it would be easy to convince you, I suppose.
But sometimes they just sit around and giggle. Sometimes they just go to raves and don’t get into any accidents. Sometimes they go to class and, although they are acting weird, don’t hurt anybody.
You never know. Just like someone who is psychotic isn’t killing or hurting people all day long. It’s not constant.
Cherry picked from all the arguments you've submitted on this thread.
Sarah Brady's got some "real stories from her life" she thinks ought to be the basis for our public policy on gun control, and I disagree with her, too.
Well, you can list all the benefits of drug abuse if you like. It’s an open forum.
And I can call you out for trying to pass off a strawman argument.
Listing three terrible things that happened to me as a result of other people’s drug abuse is a straw man argument?
“Sarah Brady’s got some “real stories from her life” she thinks ought to be the basis for our public policy on gun control, and I disagree with her, too. “
Sarah Brady’s arguments do not correlate to mine. What is the risk/benefit to access to guns?
The risk is, people will use them to commit crimes.
The benefit is, people will use them defend themselves from criminals.
Also, hunting and sports, but that’s not the beef of the argument.
The benefit way outweighs the risk, demonstrably.
We agree that it's a matter for the States. If you want to recreate the DEA in your state, have at it. People can move.
Beware the WOD Industrial Complex....too many people make too much money keeping drugs illegal....and then there are the cartels to contend with.
Beware the WOD Industrial Complex....too many people make too much money keeping drugs illegal....and then there are the cartels to contend with.
That doesn't answer my question.
To rephrase: “Oxycontin is legal and heroin illegal. Is the law askew in treating the drugs differently, assuming they both have the same negatives?
It is when you start implying that those experiences will be come everyone's experience, all the time.
Should laziness be against the law?
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.