Posted on 02/03/2003 9:54:04 AM PST by MrLeRoy
As law enforcement lobbies members of Congress and state legislators coast-to-coast for more funds to finance the war against illicit drugs, Utah's Legislature considers liberalizing Utah's liquor laws.
As leaders obsess over how governments will help pay for the costs of medical treatment, Utah's Legislature is considering liberalizing Utah's liquor laws.
Someone should teach Utah's legislators that alcohol is the most abused drug.
Pretend for a minute that humankind had not discovered alcohol until Drexel distilled it in 2000. After years of testing, would the Federal Drug Administration allow it to be sold as a drink? At best, the FDA would place it under a restrictive prescription schedule, complete with a list of warnings against side effects and addiction potential.
Studies that tout alcohol's benefit on heart health illustrate that some "scientific" testing is actually designed to justify our habits. If Drexel had discovered alcohol and tried to market it as a heart medication, the FDA would have denied the proposal because of its dangerous and addictive side effects.
Ancient beers and wines had minor food value. In specific times and places, they were safer to drink than the waters. Through the ages, humans experimented with wines and spirits, not to improve their food value, but to increase their alcohol jolt.
The snobbishness surrounding wine consumption is misleading, for vintners are just as obsessive about high alcohol contents as are the distillers of whiskey.
Alcohol, with tobacco and marijuana are the big-three hypocrisies in the American war on drugs. Proponents of these substances would have us believe they are really good for us because they are (in the popular cliché) "natural."
This logic is laughable. Mankind has so hybridized the plants involved in wine and the various types of cigarettes that nothing is natural about any of the products.
For example, mankind has so thoroughly hybridized marijuana in the past four thousand years that the original plant probably does not exist anywhere on earth. People tinkered with it -- especially since the late 1970s -- to increase the psychoactive buzz, not its dubious medical properties.
Neither the war on drugs nor the medical crisis can be taken seriously when billions are squandered to treat conditions and illnesses caused by culturally accepted drug abuse. When we are really serious about decreasing medical costs and drug abuse, we will end recreational consumption of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.
No answer?
No time. Tomorrow.
Oh, why is that there? Gee, rp, I'll play stupid and won't even guess why in the heck they would make NyQuil® with 10% alcohol.
Don't worry, you don't have to play at being stupid, you've already mastered it.
Nyquil, your sole example to support your idiotic claim, is not sold as a sleeping aid, but rather a cold medicine.
Under their 'uses' section, there is no mention of what a sleeping aid does, only that of what cold medicine does.
But hey, you've never let the facts get in your way before. Why start now?
1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled.
That's pretty much what the deal is. The libertarian party has whored itself out to get votes. A decade ago it didn't place so much emphasis on drug legalization. My program is to try and execute major dealers of hard drugs. The loosertarian program is to execute the weak and stupid drug abusers. Via legalizing drugs for them. Many of the loosertarian posters here get a quiet delight in seeing such people die. Get an ego boost from it.
Get real. Judging by the amount of votes they received, your proposition cannot stand on the facts, not to mention the whoring of the dem and repubs.
A decade ago it didn't place so much emphasis on drug legalization. My program is to try and execute major dealers of hard drugs.
Not one for objective review of available data, are you? Several countries in Asia have those policies already in place, and have for a long time. They all have substantial problems with the illegal drug trade, both as points of origin and of transshipment.
The loosertarian program is to execute the weak and stupid drug abusers. Via legalizing drugs for them.
Not big on reading comprehension, are you?
1 Many of the loosertarian posters here get a quiet delight in seeing such people die. Get an ego boost from it.
Name them and cite specific examples of when they have.
Unless you're downing 100% grain alcohol distilled in a lab, you're also advocating the use of more than one chemical, ethanol being one.
Damn that logical consistancy!
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
These are ill-defined; WHAT must be known about a substance and its pharmacological effect to justify criminalization?
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
It's not clear to me that the use of any drug poses a risk to the public health; do you have any examples?
That won't have any significant effect. Drug dealers already face a greater and more imminent risk of death from competitors than the government could ever impose, yet they continue to deal, and when one is jailed or dies another springs up to take his place.
The loosertarian program is to execute the weak and stupid drug abusers.
Wrong---no more than the freedom-loving program is to execute the weak and stupid alcohol abusers. For any given drug, some people will avoid it, some use it responsibly, some use it irresponsibly but pull themselves back from the brink, and some die from it. The fact that the War On Some Drugs creates drug-turf wars that kill innocents is by itself enough to invalidate the idea of using the WOSD to save drug users from themselves. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the Drug Warrior program is to execute those unfortunate enough to live near drug dealers.
That won't have any significant effect.
Why not? Because you f***ing say so? LOL!
The loosertarian program is to execute the weak and stupid drug abusers. Via legalizing drugs for them. Many of the loosertarian posters here (you for example) get a quiet delight in seeing such people die. Get an ego boost from it. You want no mercy except for yourself. Loosertarian!
I would go on if further explanation would make a difference with you. It wouldn't, so I'll just stand by my answer.
For the reasons I posted and you deleted from your cowardly reply: "Drug dealers already face a greater and more imminent risk of death from competitors than the government could ever impose, yet they continue to deal, and when one is jailed or dies another springs up to take his place."
Many of the loosertarian posters here (you for example) get a quiet delight in seeing such people die. Get an ego boost from it. You want no mercy except for yourself.
That stinking lie is very typical of you---and of Drug Warriors in general.
It is hypocritical for you and the other pro-dopers to fob yourselves off as conservatives. Openly admit your marxist tendencies (which are very apparent to the rest of the world) and be done with it, comrade.
Even supposing your ad hominem implications were true, answering my questions might sway undecided lurkers---who as things stand would most logically see me as having the better of the argument.
Here's another one for lurkers to ponder: why is 'abusability' a better criterion for drug laws than 'danger'?
Projection---that's the Drug Warriors' argument that illegal drugs must remain illegal so socialistic medical programs don't further burden taxpayers.
Maybe we should have one of those "blue ribbon commissions" to get all the evidence together, study it, and make a recommendation. Wait... we already did that.
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.