"Not in the least---just calling a spade a spade. "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others" is a liberal/socialist position."
With freedoms comes responsibilitys.
"There is NO governmental solution to the problem of adults harming themselves with bad choices, as the history of Prohibition proves.
So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin-Our reasoning differs here,you believe this would be a road to increased personal freedoms,I think it would be opening a can of worms.The history of prohibition does not necessarily equate with the WOD.Legal drugs might create a completely different dynamic.
"False; neither tobacco nor alcohol are under the FDA's jurisdiction."
Sorry I confused you-I was refering to prescribed medicines.Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.
"Unlike liberal Democrats and phony "conservatives," I take a consistent stand for individual freedom. "Conservatives" who support individual freedom only when it suits them are phonies."
How come so many conservatives are against the legalization of drugs then? You can't tell me every conservative who is against drug legalization is a phony.Some of them probobly realise the ramifications and realitys this would entail.You refuse to admit or simply want to accept some of the realitys that would be created if everyone was permitted access.Drugs should be decriminalized (personal possession,use)and addicts treated as sick people,not criminals.
"As I've pointed out several times and you have never rebutted, what I advocate is not a mere trade but a LESSENING of goverment control."
But you would permit the goverment and/or private industry to profit off of drugs.I can't accept that.
"Define "rampant." I didn't have to step over any drunks on my way to work today."
My office is in a downtown area where we do oftentimes have to deal with nasty drunks.I don't call the cops on them when they are passed out or unruly.I'll send one over your way if you feel you are missing out.
"Are you seriously claiming that this is a problem with the LEGALITY of tobacco and alcohol?! That's just comical."
I'm saying the goverment should not have the ability to tax my tobbacco and booze.Yes,that's a problem.
"crack being no more dangerous than alcohol [...] The goverment scientists who came up with that kind of conclusions
Why are you misrepresenting my position? I never said that, nor did the USDoJ."
Refer back to your post #66. You cite a report that claims drugs such as PCP do not cause any more propensity for violence than alcohol.And I agree alcohol is linked with tons of violence.But I think any study claiming that PCP is no more dangerous than alcohol is seriously skewed.
"Observations "out in the street" are neither randomly selected nor comparable against a control group, so they prove LESS about general conclusions than scientific observations do."
OK-how about when a study proports to be subjective,but is actually quite biased.That's not uncommon.
"And my opinion is your logic just won't work if it ever did actually come to fruition."
"Nonresponsive. You claimed that people should be allowed to kill dealers of legalized narcotics, and you agree that alcohol is also a harmful substance, so the logical consequence is that people should be allowed to kill dealers of alcohol."
I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol. But yes,armed citizens could in my opinion control narcotics trafficing more effectivly than legalization could. I think it's seriously unlikely either will happen at anytime soon.Thanks for the debate-you're not half bad.
"There is NO governmental solution to the problem of adults harming themselves with bad choices, as the history of Prohibition proves. So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin
Yup.
you believe this would be a road to increased personal freedoms
BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom.
The history of prohibition does not necessarily equate with the WOD.
They were initiated with the same arguments, and had the same evil effects. If you want to argue a significant difference, the burden is on you to provide evidence.
Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.
So what?
"Unlike liberal Democrats and phony "conservatives," I take a consistent stand for individual freedom. "Conservatives" who support individual freedom only when it suits them are phonies."
How come so many conservatives are against the legalization of drugs then? You can't tell me every conservative who is against drug legalization is a phony.
They're either phonies or they haven't thought it through.
You refuse to admit
I don't refuse to admit any truths. (I do reject some anti-drug-freedom hysteria posing as truth.)
or simply want to accept some of the realitys that would be created if everyone was permitted access.
Yes, just as we all accept the realities created by legal alcohol and tobacco.
"As I've pointed out several times and you have never rebutted, what I advocate is not a mere trade but a LESSENING of goverment control."
But you would permit the goverment and/or private industry to profit off of drugs.I can't accept that.
You accept it right now---private industry profits off of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. (Or do you support changing that?)
My office is in a downtown area where we do oftentimes have to deal with nasty drunks.
I don't see that as "rampant" alcoholism; perhaps you do. Should we ban alcohol to end that problem? If not, why not?
"Are you seriously claiming that this is a problem with the LEGALITY of tobacco and alcohol?! That's just comical."
I'm saying the goverment should not have the ability to tax my tobbacco and booze.
Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?
Refer back to your post #66. You cite a report that claims drugs such as PCP do not cause any more propensity for violence than alcohol. [...] any study claiming that PCP is no more dangerous than alcohol is seriously skewed.
So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?
"Observations "out in the street" are neither randomly selected nor comparable against a control group, so they prove LESS about general conclusions than scientific observations do."
OK-how about when a study proports to be subjective,but is actually quite biased.
The burden is on the study's critics to prove bias (as critics of recent anti-Ecstasy studies have proved). You can't just say 'I don't like that study's conclusions so it must be biased.'
"You claimed that people should be allowed to kill dealers of legalized narcotics, and you agree that alcohol is also a harmful substance, so the logical consequence is that people should be allowed to kill dealers of alcohol."
I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol.
It's the logical consequence of what you have claimed.