Without sanction from temporal authorities? 
Posted on 05/18/2002 7:44:57 PM PDT by LarryLied
One measure of a good society is whether its individual members have the autonomy to do as they choose in respects that principally concern only them. The debate about heroin, cocaine and marijuana touches precisely on this. In my submission, a society in which such substances are legal and available is a good society not because drugs are in themselves good, but because the autonomy of those who wish to use them is respected. For other and broader reasons, many of them practical, such a society will be a better one.
I have never taken drugs other than alcohol, nicotine, caffeine and medicinal drugs. Of these, I have for many years not taken the two former. I think it is inimical to a good life to be dependent for pleasure and personal fulfilment on substances which gloss or distort reality and interfere with rationality; and yet I believe that heroin, cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and cognates of these should be legal and available in exactly the same way as nicotine and alcohol.
In logic is no difference between legal and currently illegal drugs. Both are used for pleasure, relief from stress or anxiety, and 'holidaying' from normal life, and both are, in different degrees, dangerous to health. Given this, consistent policy must do one of two things: criminalise the use of nicotine and alcohol, in order to bring them in line with currently illegal substances; or legalise currently illegal substances under the same kinds of regime that govern nicotine and alcohol.
On civil liberties grounds the latter policy is preferable because there is no justification in a good society for policing behaviour unless, in the form of rape, murder, theft, riot or fraud, it is intrinsically damaging to the social fabric, and involves harm to unwilling third parties. Good law protects in these respects; bad law tries to coerce people into behaving according to norms chosen by people who claim to know and to do better than those for whom they legislate. But the imposition of such norms is an injustice. By all means let the disapprovers argue and exhort; giving them the power to coerce and punish as well is unacceptable.
Arguments to the effect that drugs should be kept illegal to protect children fall by the same token. On these grounds, nicotine and alcohol should be banned too. In fact there is greater danger to children from the illegality of drugs.
Almost everyone who wishes to try drugs, does so; almost everyone who wishes to make use of drugs does it irrespective of their legal status. Opponents say legalisation will lead to unrestrained use and abuse. Yet the evidence is that where laws have been relaxed there is little variation in frequency or kind of use.
The classic example is Prohibition in the USA during the 1920s. (The hysteria over alcohol extended to other drugs; heroin was made illegal in the USA in 1924, on the basis of poor research on its health risks and its alleged propensity to cause insanity and criminal behaviour.) Prohibition created a huge criminal industry. The end of Prohibition did not result in a frenzy of drinking, but did leave a much-enhanced crime problem, because the criminals turned to substances which remained illegal, and supplied them instead.
Crime destabilises society. Gangland rivalry, the use of criminal organisations to launder money, to fund terrorism and gun-running, to finance the trafficking of women and to buy political and judicial influence all destabilise the conditions for a good society far beyond such problems as could be created by private individuals' use of drugs. If drugs were legally and safely available through chemist shops, and if their use was governed by the same provisions as govern alcohol purchase and consumption, the main platform for organised crime would be removed, and thereby one large obstacle to the welfare of society.
It would also remove much petty crime, through which many users fund their habit. If addiction to drugs were treated as a medical rather than criminal matter, so that addicts could get safe, regular supplies on prescription, the crime rate would drop dramatically, as argued recently by certain police chiefs.
The safety issue is a simple one. Paracetemol is more dangerous than heroin. Taking double the standard dose of paracetemol, a non-prescription analgesic, can be dangerous. Taking double the standard medical dose of heroin (diamorphine) causes sleepiness and no lasting effects.
A good society should be able to accommodate practices which are not destructive of social bonds (in the way that theft, rape, murder and other serious crimes are), but mainly have to do with private behaviour. In fact, a good society should only interfere in private behaviour in extremis.
Until a century ago, now-criminal substances were legal and freely available. Some (opium in the form of laudanum) were widely used. Just as some people are damaged by misuse of alcohol, so a few were adversely affected by misuses of other drugs. Society as a whole was not adversely affected by the use of drugs; but it was benefited by the fact that it did not burden itself with a misjudged, unworkable and paternalistic endeavour to interfere with those who chose to use drugs.
The place of drugs in the good society is not about the drugs as such, but rather the freedom and the value to individuals and their society of openness to experimentation and alternative behaviours and lifestyles. The good society is permissive, seeking to protect third parties from harm but not presuming to order people to take this or that view about what is in their own good.
Without sanction from temporal authorities?
It did no such thing.
No inteligent rebuttal by Roscoe. Of course.
Not in the class of red wine or other alcholic beverages which, in moderation, has long term health benefits.
Only illicit drug I can think of which may is coca leaves.
Can Equal and Honest Justice be Obtained on FreeRepublic --
Windsong Refuses to Apologize for Unjust Attack on Fellow Freeper
I must protect myself from Windsong's attack on me. This forum will serve well towards that goal.
First I will present the chronology of events that encompass Windsong's repeated attacks and my numerous defenses. It will become obvious what has transpired. My only recourse to defend myself is to bring everything, or as much as possible, out in the open. And to clear the air, so to speak.
Chronology of Events
I posted an article, Giants versus Twerps, as a response to another Freeper. Rather than post the article here you can read it at this link: Response #789* * *
To: Zon
My god man, learn to SUMMARIZE already! You have got to be without a doubt the biggest plagiarist on FR! This has to be the trillioneth time I have seen you cut and paste this crap from your pseudo-intellectual-objectivist bull$shit cult site this month! Last time I checked, it was considered honorable to give credit where credit is due..to the original author. Were you a used car salesman in your previous life?
Retch!!!
* * *
To: WindsongThis has to be the trillioneth time I have seen you cut and paste this crap from your pseudo-intellectual-objectivist bull$shit cult site this month!
You are a liar.
Aside from the one lone posting at 789 (posted tonight) I have never posted the "Giants versus Twerps" article/template on FreeRepublic.
Last time I checked, it was considered honorable to give credit where credit is due..to the original author. Were you a used car salesman in your previous life?
I don't know who the author is although I have been given permission to post the article or any portion of the article however I see fit by the owner of the article That owner is Neo-Tech Publishing Worldwide. If you read the article you would see that the credit is in the article.
895 posted on 5/20/02 2:59 AM Eastern by Zon
* * *To: Zon
"I don't know who the author is although I have been given permission"
Brilliant. And no, I didn't lie. You have REPEATEDLY done this over the past few months and I am just now calling you on it. If you don't know who the ORIGINAL author is..then DONT POST IT and encourage newbies to think that YOU wrote it. THAT is the trademark of a LIAR.
913 posted on 5/20/02 4:08 AM Eastern by Windsong
* * *To: Windsong
Zon wrote: "I don't know who the author is although I have been given permission"
Windsong wrote: Brilliant. And no, I didn't lie. You have REPEATEDLY done this over the past few months and I am just now calling you on it.
I'm calling you on this one. Prove your claim. As I said in my last post, "Aside from the one lone posting at 789 (posted tonight) I have never posted the 'Giants versus Twerps' article/template on FreeRepublic."
You [
k]now have to prove your claim. Find even one other posting of the 'Giants versus Twerps' article that I have posted on FreeRepublic. You won't find one.If you don't know who the ORIGINAL author is..then DONT POST IT
I told you in my last post that the owner gave me permission to post the entire article or any portion of it as I see fit. Would you like to see the permission?
and encourage newbies to think that YOU wrote it.
I did no such thing. It is clear in the article that I didn't write it. And you have to read the article to know that, which it is highly improbable that you read it considering your hatred of anything and everything Neo-Tech.
THAT is the trademark of a LIAR.
Back up your claim and quit the reverse-the-blame-tantrum in attempt to extricate yourself from the fact that you lied and can't back up your claim.
For the record, here's the dialog as it transpired:
To: ZonMy god man, learn to SUMMARIZE already! You have got to be without a doubt the biggest plagiarist on FR! This has to be the trillioneth time I have seen you cut and paste this crap from your pseudo-intellectual-objectivist bull$shit cult site this month! Last time I checked, it was considered honorable to give credit where credit is due..to the original author. Were you a used car salesman in your previous life?
Retch!!!
881 posted on 5/20/02 2:43 AM Eastern by Windsong
To: Windsong
This has to be the trillioneth time I have seen you cut and paste this crap from your pseudo-intellectual-objectivist bull$shit cult site this month!
You are a liar.
Aside from the one lone posting at 789 (posted tonight) I have never posted the "Giants versus Twerps" article/template on FreeRepublic.
Last time I checked, it was considered honorable to give credit where credit is due..to the original author. Were you a used car salesman in your previous life?
I don't know who the author is although I have been given permission to post the article or any portion of the article however I see fit by the owner of the article That owner is Neo-Tech Publishing Worldwide. If you read the article you would see that the credit is in the article.
895 posted on 5/20/02 2:59 AM Eastern by Zon
To: Zon
"I don't know who the author is although I have been given permission"
Brilliant. And no, I didn't lie. You have REPEATEDLY done this over the past few months and I am just now calling you on it. If you don't know who the ORIGINAL author is..then DONT POST IT and encourage newbies to think that YOU wrote it. THAT is the trademark of a LIAR.
I sent Windsong a Freepmail of that last post above, less the repetition of the dialog that was tacked on the end. I didn't save the email I sent Windsong so maybe he or she can post it.
Windsong chose to respond to my Freepmail. Windsong chose not to respond to the near identical post, #923
Important note. I have never posted any Freeper's email that they sent to me. Emails are private and should remain private. There is one exception, when it becomes a material affect of a violation of a person's rights. That is, I am using it to right a wrong wherein my rights were violated. When a person violates another person's rights the attacker loses the opportunity to be respected and treated as an equal. That has been Windong's choice.
This is not a court of law but it should prove to be much more effective in obtaining the desired effect of clearing my name from Windsong's attacks on me.
That said, here's the Freepmail Windsong sent to me.
Re: WHY A HIGH SOCIETY IS A FREE SOCIETY
From Windsong | 2002-05-20 02:44:47 repliedI could go to each and EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where you have repeatedly cut and pasted this cult crap all over FR for the last 12 months..but such would be a waste of time and a waste of bandwidth, for you'd deny and cry about it till the cows came home.
Hatred? No such thing emanating from this direction, sir. It is YOU who hates. Everything from Christianity to Republicans to the Rule of Law.
Any newbie worth his own shirt would read your post and assume that *you* had written it. You never bother posting links, posting names, or posting authors. You simply CUT and PASTE. Plenty of users here alredy KNOW it. Trust me on that one.
Throw your fit somewhere else. I CAUGHT you and exposed you red-handed and now you're wanting to break your toys and scream and stomp.
Seen it a hundred times before. You aren't the first, and certainly won't be the last to post things without giving what is properly due to the rightful creator of such property.
* * *
In the process of posting Windsong's Freepmail to me, new problems for Windsong have come up. My intent was to show that Windsong had no intention of apologizing for his or her attack. That Windsong chose to further attack in the Freepmail sent to me is a side issue that I will deal with now.
I always post a link back to where I get a quote from an article or document on the Internet. That wasn't posted on FreeRepublic. I usually do it for posts within FreeRepublic as well, but obviously not when quoting from the article of the thread I am posting on.
Also important is that I seldom cut-and-paste anything from Neo-Tech because I prefer to use my own writing as it facilitates me to internalize Neo-Tech. Also, just my posting any cut-and-paste from the Neo-Tech Web site usually upsets some Freepers and I get attacked for doing so. Quite often I have been accused of cut-and-paste from the Neo-Tech Web site despite using my own writings. And no, it is not my Web site nor am I employed by Neo-Tech. I just like their work.
Any Freeper that has any question of whether something I posted was my writing or a cut-and-paste from the Neo-Tech Web site they can ask here or in freepmail. It's interesting to note that the people that attacked me for cut-and-paste from the Neo-Tech Web site -- even though it was my own writing -- not one of them thought to first ask if it was my writing or a cut-and-paste from the Neo-Tech web site. In each instance, after I informed the attacker that it was my writing, not one person apologized for their attack or errors.
Windsong may be the first. We shall see.
Moving on to the rest of my self-defense to gain restitution from Windsong here is another dialog between Windsong and I that transpired a few days ago. This is another attack by Windson on me. This presents yet another problem for Windsong. If only Windsong would have just asked first instead of attacking me none of this would be necessary.
The thread that Windsong's days-earlier attack on me occurred has been deleted. MORAN INTRODUCES SMART DRIVER S LICENSE BILL - THE DRIVER S LICENSE MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2002. Fortunately, I have good organizations in my FrontPage Web Publishing program where I chronologically save virtually every post I make. Here is the the attack on me by Windsong and my reply back...
Ya know, just for once I would like to see something ORIGINAL, written by yourself and only by yourself, instead of this plethora of cut and paste jobs from the Zonhead site.
I copy and pasted nothing. Either you back up your claim or come forth and correct your error. What will you do? Run and hide? Continue your charade? Or, will you be honest and correct your error?
I seldom use cut and paste because I prefer to internalize. I spent considerable time crafting each sentence. IMO, what you wrote is BS. Why? Because you don't really want to read something original from me. You just said that to take a pot-shot attack on Neo-Tech.
Speaking of Neo-Tech. What is it that most bothers you about it? Perhaps you should write a comment and post it to one of their feed back boards. The[y] welcome both positive and negative comments. In fact, they would rather have negative comments. In part to offset the plethora of positive comments that out number negative comments by more than a hundred to one. You should read both the positive and then the negative comments. It makes for a good and insightful juxtaposition.
Good luck should you decide to go the route of backing up your claim. I said "luck" because you probably believe in non-reality as if it was real. Here's a link to the Web site that you claim I cut and pasted from. Neo-Tech-Zonpower Home Page
* *
Because of that days-earlier-Windsong attack on me (void of an just apology due me), then came last nights new attack on me, to that new attack I chose in my initial response to just come right out and charge Windsong with being a liar.
Here is your opportunity to make right a wrong, Windsong. I am giving you the opportunity to apologize for lying about and attacking me on the Giants versus Twerps article. I can tell you now that it would be futile for you to try to back up your claim because I have only posted the Giants versus Twerps article once on FreeRepublic. Which you almost certainly know -- unless you have mystical visions in your head and in that case you imagined I posted it more than the once.
As for your other attacks on me in your freepmail and the thread that got pulled, I'm not expecting you to right those wrongs. You do with them as your conscience allows you.
* * * * *
Additional notes:
Whether a person follows a religion that is different than yours or follows no religion at all, when they talk or write about their religion, or why they have follow no religion, that does not constitute an attack on your religion. Be mature and tolerant.
Frankly, I don't mind that some people chose to attack Neo-Tech. What I do mind is when the person attacks me, the messenger. Especially when they attack me for cut-and-paste when it is my writing.
In regards to the rule of law. It's real simple, I abide by the Neo-Tech constitution. It has only three short but powerful Articles:
|
Article 1 No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property. Article 2 Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1. Article 3 No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2. |
Thus, I pose no threat to any person or their property.
I'm not affiliated with, or a member of any political party. Despite many people asserting that I'm a Libertarian. They're wrong, but in my opinion that's better than people asserting that I'm a Democrat or Republican. Also, I have no animosity towards any person for their political affiliations... or race, religion or sex for that mater.
Lastly, to the admin moderator, if it is possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would repost the pulled thread or send it to me via the email address I'll send you by freepmail. The pulled thread is: MORAN INTRODUCES SMART DRIVER S LICENSE BILL - THE DRIVER S LICENSE MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2002
All questions, curiosities and flames welcome.
All American's have a stake in efforts to reduce illicit drug use among adults and to reduce the availability of these harmful substances to teenagers and young children. Drug abuse not only causes disastrous effects the individual user, but also leads to adverse consequences to their families, friends and society at large. These iliicit substances rob people of a better life and have no redeeming social value.
Oh, wait, people who sell alchohol don't go around killing people? I thought the only people who dealt in booze during prohibition were violent hoodlums. How do we nowhave a (mostly) peaceful and above-board industry?
That may come as a surprise to the surviving family members of Phoenix reporter Don Bolles, murdered by a car bomb when his newspaper reports connecting political and mob activity came a little too close to embarassing Barry Goldwater and Arizona political stringpuller and kingmaker Kemper Marley. Then after Bolles was fatally dealt with, and after his pals were pulled off their own investigations into his unfinished leads as they too began to get too close, it was safe for the Phoenix Mafia/political alliance to trot out a fresh face they had under their control.
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.