Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle

"Responsible cocaine users would no more use the crack form than responsible drinkers drink straight Everclear. It's the illegality of (some) drugs that has encouraged their increased potency---just as Prohibition turned drinkers from beer and wine to liquor."

The increased potency and "more bang for the buck" has nothing to do with it.Right.Uh huh.

"Ah, the anti-drug-freedom position in a nutshell: 'My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

You are simply parroting pro-drug rhetoric I've heard from scores of druggies.Maybe you're right.Lets just open up the floodgates and see what happens.

"You have your opinion,

Which is a conservative one.

I have mine.

Which is a liberal one."

A little frustrated huh? This thread is entitled "three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstacy smuggle. Three foreigners brought a substance that has absolutly no redeeming value,no medical use,is nothing but a dangerous poison and a blight on our youth.I am advocating not making substances available to the general public.You are saying in the interest of personal freedoms they should be legal.I am saying a common sense solution would be registered addicts having access.I am saying the WOD should be ceased,but I am admitting there is no easy solution to the drug problem here in the US. Your assertion is that drugs should be sold and dispensed under goverment controls(all legal drugs are licensed by the FDA,and will continue to be).

Your comments sound like those of many liberal democrats,mine sound like those of many conservatives I have heard.

"your position of trading one form of goverment control for another."

"Still telling this lie? Shame on you."

How is this a lie-you would allow the goverment to control illicit drugs.Are you denying this?

"False; you said, "it's not working real well with the substances that are legal at this point."

What's working so well about it? Rampant alcoholism,sky high taxation on alcohol and tobbacco.Do we need more problems from substances that clearly are bigger problems.All your mumbo-jumbo about crack being no more dangerous than alcohol is naive reasoning in my opinion.The goverment scientists who came up with that kind of conclusions have obviously never been out in the street.

"I'm pointing out the logical consequences of your statements. If you don't like them, rethink your statements."

And my opinion is your logic just won't work if it ever did actually come to fruition. I too feel the WOD is an exercise in futility.But you know and I know it's going to be a long time before Heroin and crack are legal in the US.

"Responsible cocaine users would no more use the crack form than responsible drinkers drink straight Everclear. It's the illegality of (some) drugs that has encouraged their increased potency---just as Prohibition turned drinkers from beer and wine to liquor."

The increased potency and "more bang for the buck" has nothing to do with it.

Nothing to do with what? Are you even trying to address what I wrote?

"Ah, the anti-drug-freedom position in a nutshell: 'My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

You are simply parroting pro-drug rhetoric

No, I'm taking a consistent stand for freedom---whereas you are parroting the liberal/socialist dogma, "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others."

"You have your opinion,

Which is a conservative one.

I have mine.

Which is a liberal one."

A little frustrated huh?

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.

there is no easy solution to the drug problem here in the US.

There is NO governmental solution to the problem of adults harming themselves with bad choices, as the history of Prohibition proves.

(all legal drugs are licensed by the FDA,and will continue to be).

False; neither tobacco nor alcohol are under the FDA's jurisdiction.

Your comments sound like those of many liberal democrats,mine sound like those of many conservatives I have heard.

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.

"your position of trading one form of goverment control for another."

"Still telling this lie? Shame on you."

How is this a lie

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.

What's working so well about it? Rampant alcoholism,

Define "rampant." I didn't have to step over any drunks on my way to work today.

sky high taxation on alcohol and tobbacco.

Are you seriously claiming that this is a problem with the LEGALITY of tobacco and alcohol?! That's just comical.

Do we need more problems

Whenever there is true freedom there is the potential for self-harm. To a true conservative that is not an argument for restricting freedom.

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.

have obviously never been out in the street.

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.

"I'm pointing out the logical consequences of your statements. If you don't like them, rethink your statements."

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.

"Responsible cocaine users would no more use the crack form than responsible drinkers drink straight Everclear. It's the illegality of (some) drugs that has encouraged their increased potency---just as Prohibition turned drinkers from beer and wine to liquor."

No responsible drinkers usually do not drink everclear.Many do drink 80 proof scotch though.All I'm saying is that just because something is legal,does not mean people won't seek out high potency levels.I belive the same would be true with crack vs. Garden variety cocaine,Heroin vs. raw opium etc.

"No, I'm taking a consistent stand for freedom---whereas you are parroting the liberal/socialist dogma, "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others."

With freedoms come responsibilitys.The word dogma would more apply to your rigid approach.But I respect your quest for freedom non the less.

"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.

just because something is legal,does not mean people won't seek out high potency levels.

I didn't say crack use would disappear (the War On Some Drugs let that genie out of the bottle)---but it would most likely be less than it is today.

"No, I'm taking a consistent stand for freedom---whereas you are parroting the liberal/socialist dogma, "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others."

With freedoms come responsibilitys.

"Responsibility" means not violating the rights of others; it does not mean "exercising your rights only in the ways Rocksalt approves of." Drug use does not violate the rights of others.

"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.

"I didn't say crack use would disappear (the War On Some Drugs let that genie out of the bottle)---but it would most likely be less than it is today."

You are entitled to speculate just as I do sometimes.That's your gut feeling,and I go by intuition alot too.

"Responsibility" means not violating the rights of others; it does not mean "exercising your rights only in the ways Rocksalt approves of." Drug use does not violate the rights of others."

No drug use does not violate the rights of others,in theory,but behaviors related to drug use are oftentimes known to.If drugs are legalized there might be a whole lot of people accounting for their actions.

"So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin"

"Yup."

That scares me-but you know that.

"BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom."

But it might be a little more freedom than many can handle.

"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."

True there are many valid comparisons between the two.My intuition tells me there would be quite a bit of difference in the actual effects of easy access to narcotics and I have already made my concerns about the addictive propertys of narcotics.I totally agree with you that there would be many benefits to legalization.But I feel the side effects would be a nightmare and have MANY hidden drains on society.

"Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.

So what?"

Goverment control ok with you? What happened to true freedom?

"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 are certainly entitled to your opinion,but it just might be that many don't feel full-on legalization is wise,or that other's freedoms would be infringed upon as a result.

"we all accept the realities created by legal alcohol and tobacco."

And some of the realitys are not that great.Some of the realitys of dope use might be much worse(my personal feeling)do we need a legal "needle park" in every town?

"You accept it right now---private industry profits off of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. (Or do you support changing that?)

Change it-I've already taken matters into my own hands and brewed homebrew. I've seen people growing tobbacco in the past too,and it's not hard.It's not that I mind somebody profiting off the stuff,I just don't like the goverment control aspects.

"I don't see that as "rampant" alcoholism; perhaps you do. Should we ban alcohol to end that problem? If not, why not?"

Come on,you know and I know there's a hell of a lot of alcoholics out there in the US and they are a real vailid problem.No,we should not ban alcohol,I feel the current situation is tolerable.You might be right,it might be tolerable with drugs too,but as I have said before,the potential for people to O.D. is alot higher with narcotics. I'm taking this into account.

"Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?"

My ideal would obviously be to have no taxes. I suffer through them because I realise our infrastuctures would collapse without them.But I prefer the least amount of taxes to the maximum amount generally.

"So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?"

No-there are many dangerous aspects to narcotics.You and I both know that.

"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."

Short on time at the moment,but when I have time I will read it thoroughly and give you my opinion on this.

"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."

Never said that but still think it might be a very effective control for narcotics dealers who prey on communitys.

"I didn't say crack use would disappear (the War On Some Drugs let that genie out of the bottle)---but it would most likely be less than it is today."

That's your gut feeling

False; I have offered facts and logic in support of that position.

"Responsibility" means not violating the rights of others; it does not mean "exercising your rights only in the ways Rocksalt approves of." Drug use does not violate the rights of others."

No drug use does not violate the rights of others,in theory,but behaviors related to drug use are oftentimes known to.

Ditto for alcohol; should we ban that drug? Suppose we found that shooters of abortionists often had been reading anti-abortion literature prior to their crimes; would that be a good reason to ban anti-abortion literature?

"BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom."

But it might be a little more freedom than many can handle.

Who are you, or anyone else, to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"? If a simple majority thinks you stay up too late, or don't eat healthy, should we decide you can't "hanlde" the freedom to set your own hours and choose your own meals?

My intuition tells me

When your intuition has some facts on its side, let me know.

"Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.

So what?"

Goverment control ok with you? What happened to true freedom?

As I've explained over and over again, I prefer more freedom, even if incomplete, to less freedom. Is that really so difficult for you to comprehend?

it just might be that many [...] feel [...] that other's freedoms would be infringed upon as a result.

Then they're wrong---as you agreed in your previous post.

(my personal feeling)

I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?

do we need a legal "needle park" in every town?

"Needle park" was a stupid anti-freedom idea---why encourage junkies to publicly congregate by granting them freedom only in a small space?

It's not that I mind somebody profiting off the stuff

You, post 106: "you would permit the goverment and/or private industry to profit off of drugs.I can't accept that." Let me know when you've made up your mind.

No,we should not ban alcohol,I feel the current situation is tolerable.

You, post 102: "What's working so well about [legal alcohol]? Rampant alcoholism [...]" Let me know when you've made up your mind.

the potential for people to O.D. is alot higher with narcotics.

ODs are largely CAUSED by the illegality of drugs and the consequent variability in purity. Legalize drugs and you end most ODs.

"Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?"

My ideal would obviously be to have no taxes. I suffer through them because I realise our infrastuctures would collapse without them.But I prefer the least amount of taxes to the maximum amount generally.

You didn't answer the question: Why should tobacco and alcohol be MORE protected?

"So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?"

No

Then why did you equate them in post 106? You: "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."

"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."

Short on time at the moment,but when I have time I will read it thoroughly and give you my opinion on this.

Has five days been enough time?

"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."

Never said that

What part of "logical consequence" do you not understand?

but still think it might be a very effective control for narcotics dealers who prey on communitys.

Why would it be any less effective against dealers of the drug alcohol?

Crack use will never dissapear,as long as cocaine and baking soda exist.Making cocaine more commonly readily available would make it easier to make the finished product.How could it not?Do you think crackheads will suddenly say they prefer a product that takes longer to affect them and is not as powerful ounce for ounce just because one or the other is suddenly legal?

"No drug use does not violate the rights of others,in theory,but behaviors related to drug use are oftentimes known to.

Ditto for alcohol; should we ban that drug? Suppose we found that shooters of abortionists often had been reading anti-abortion literature prior to their crimes; would that be a good reason to ban anti-abortion literature?"

Throughout our discussion on this issue,we have examined the relative dangers of legal and illicit substances.I have stated that I feel narcotic drugs are a lot more dangerous than alcohol in general.I still feel my points about narcotics having a propensity to hook people into addiction cycles much quicker than alcohol is an argument that has merit in ascessing the situation and examining the subject of possible narcotics legalization.No I don't feel it is the job of goverment to protect people from dangerous things.But I do feel it would be wise to make every effort to keep narcotics out of the hands of children.And I think these substances would reach the hands of children much more easily if they were more readily available in our society.That would seem a responsible thing to do.Neither you nor I have the right to place children in danger,and I will say again that I think behaviors linked to drug use do violate the rights of others oftentimes.Comparing alcohol and narcotics is like comparing candle wax to rocket fuel.Or at least diesel to rocket fuel.Both are dangerous,but rocket fuel is much more volatile.

"Who are you, or anyone else, to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?"

I don't decide this,or any1 person-If drugs are to be legalized,I feel it should be by vote of the people,since this would affect everyone.A supreme court decision would be too narrow a band of opinion on this subject.

"to set your own hours and choose your own meals?"

This does not seem like a really great comparison.Neither of those are associated with lots of crime.Watch that sugar intake though......

"When your intuition has some facts on its side, let me know."

Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings.Remember,behind every study there is a motivation and funders.I've done research enough to know this.

"As I've explained over and over again, I prefer more freedom, even if incomplete, to less freedom. Is that really so difficult for you to comprehend?"

No. Incomplete,true,as I said before,I applaud you quest for true freedoms.I feel you have great intentions.Do these intentions=realistic choices?

"it just might be that many [...] feel [...] that other's freedoms would be infringed upon as a result." (RS)

"Then they're wrong---as you agreed in your previous post."(Mr. LR)

Drug use itself is a non-violent crime.No infringement there.The ramifications of legalized narcotics involve many possible infringements on the rights of others.Can't you admit this?

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

I just don't hear alot of Repubs touting legal drugs.The ones I do are generally pro drug.Which attitude sounds more liberal or conservative? You tell me.I have always heard a ton of liberals in favor of legalization.

"Needle park" was a stupid anti-freedom idea---why encourage junkies to publicly congregate by granting them freedom only in a small space?"

It makes it much easier to haul away the bodies that are the inevitable result of legalized narcotics.Easier to keep an eye on them.Easier to run the needle exchange that helps keep them alive.

"It's not that I mind somebody profiting off the stuff"

Should have read "not that I mind people making profits"-just not on drugs that are like selling people cyanide pills. Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself? Might make you some healthy profits.

"What's working so well about [legal alcohol]? Rampant alcoholism [...]" Let me know when you've made up your mind."

It's not working all that well.Some people are able to use it responsibly,some aren't.I feel it is tolerable.When prohibition went away,all of the inherent problems didn't.Here's a big important question for you sir:

Since the goverment,me,and whoever else does not have the right or need to protect us from dangerous behaviors,why should a police officer be able to arrest me for DUII when I'm not harming anyone,have not hit anyone or any vehicles,and the only proboble cause to pull me over is a taillight out? this would seem to be an infringement on my personal freedoms according to you.It's a victimless crime until I've hurt or hit someone.

"ODs are largely CAUSED by the illegality of drugs and the consequent variability in purity. Legalize drugs and you end most ODs."

Horsepucky-You give proof this time ace.OD's are caused by someone taking too large a dose,and the legality of the substance has absolutely no bearing on someone's desire of one concoction over another.Pure,stabilized quality would NOT mean a junkie would not want more and more.

"You didn't answer the question: Why should tobacco and alcohol be MORE protected?"

They are already here,and they are immensely more survivable for most.You can draw all the comparisons you want between narcotics and D&A,but they are two individual subjects,with unique solutions.

"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."

I'll read it more thouroughly when I have time,no five days has not been enough time due to meetings,work,conference,I know'I've got lots of excuses,but you haven't heard the last of me on that study.

"Why would it be any less effective against dealers of the drug alcohol?"

Oh it would be quite effective against them as well,but that's a possibility you have raised,not me.

I'll read that study and get back at you in the next day or so-Take care-RS

Crack use will never dissapear [etc.]

I already agreed with that.

I still feel my points about narcotics having a propensity to hook people into addiction cycles much quicker than alcohol is an argument that has merit

You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim.

I do feel it would be wise to make every effort to keep narcotics out of the hands of children.And I think these substances would reach the hands of children much more easily if they were more readily available in our society.

By that logic, everything that's dangerous for children should be banned for adults---alcohol, knives, cars, ....

Who are you, or anyone else, to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?"

I don't decide this,or any1 person-If drugs are to be legalized,I feel it should be by vote of the people

Who is a majority to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?

"to set your own hours and choose your own meals?"

This does not seem like a really great comparison.Neither of those are associated with lots of crime.

But alcohol is. If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?

"When your intuition has some facts on its side, let me know."

Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings.Remember,behind every study there is a motivation and funders.

Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief.

Drug use itself is a non-violent crime.No infringement there.

Exactly.

The ramifications of legalized narcotics involve many possible infringements on the rights of others.

We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements.

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

I just don't hear alot of Repubs touting legal drugs.The ones I do are generally pro drug.Which attitude sounds more liberal or conservative? You tell me.I have always heard a ton of liberals in favor of legalization.

You didn't answer my question. (By the way, Republican does not mean the same thing as conservative.)

Should have read "not that I mind people making profits"-just not on drugs that are like selling people cyanide pills.

Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening.

Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?

Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail).

Since the goverment,me,and whoever else does not have the right or need to protect us from dangerous behaviors,why should a police officer be able to arrest me for DUII when I'm not harming anyone,have not hit anyone or any vehicles,and the only proboble cause to pull me over is a taillight out?

Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property.

"ODs are largely CAUSED by the illegality of drugs and the consequent variability in purity. Legalize drugs and you end most ODs."

OD's are caused by someone taking too large a dose [...] Pure,stabilized quality would NOT mean a junkie would not want more and more.

"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?

"Why would it be any less effective against dealers of the drug alcohol?"

Oh it would be quite effective against them as well

Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives.

"I still feel my points about narcotics having a propensity to hook people into addiction cycles much quicker than alcohol is an argument that has merit"

"You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim."

In one of my earlier posts I cited a reputable source that explained that crack is often so addictive that even one encounter with the substance can render some helpless against cravings for more.How often do you hear about someone developing alcohol cravings of this intensity after their first drink?

"By that logic, everything that's dangerous for children should be banned for adults---alcohol, knives, cars, .... "

Why are these things not banned then? Obviously a majority of the american people do not feel they should be illegal.A majority of the public must not feel strongly that drugs should be legalized or they would be excercising their free-speech rights and trying to get the laws changed.I am not talking about alcohol,knives and cars here,I am specifically talking about schedule 1 narcotics.

"Who is a majority to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?

Sounds a lot better than a small body of select individuals like the supreme court.Once again I respect your quest for freedoms.I'm sure you have a basis for your feelings that the constitution entitles us to do drugs.I agree the constitution supposedly provides us protections against unreasonable search and seizure.Convince me-I'm listening and I'm willing to learn something if you can offer it.I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?"

Laws exist in virtually every state and municipality that prohibit public drunkedness,DUII,and drinking in public.Sometimes a line must be drawn,would you not agree this is for good reason sometimes? I don't see a whole lot of citizen uprisings against these statutes.Why?

"Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief."

Never said they were unbiased.I claim common sense.Reasonability and prudency are reflected in my instincts I would hope(although you will refute that I'm sure-feel free).

"We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements."

Who is we? Supreme court,vote of American people,city councils,state goverment,elected officials? Cite constitutional provisions-I am listening with an open mind-honestly.......

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

Conservatives do generally argue with sound facts but in this particular case I feel in spite of the information you cite,somehow you end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization.I am not accusing you of being a liberal,it's obvious your beliefs are rooted in achieving personal libertys.Kudos on that aspect of your arguments.

"Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening."

Good point-my obvious reply would be narcotics can kill you in a single minute.Different animal all together.

"Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?

"Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail)."

Yeah I hate retail too.Used to own my own music store and always felt cooped up.You can hire a bunch of Pakistanis cheap though.Seriously though,after the first 14 year old girl OD's on your good,pure dope,tell me what you will tell her mother when she comes in to let you know the dope you sold to John ended up in Jill's body.Even though you are just like an alcohol store and can't control where it all goes,will you feel good about selling your product?

"Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property."

What difference does that make by your logic-I'm not harming anyone,isn't that a victimless crime until I do harm people or property?

"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?"

Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics? OD's are often caused by addicts not knowing the actual potency of their poisons.But they also happen because an addict feels like going a little bit further,doing just a little bit more will get them higher.Tolerance sets in and it's hard to know how fast.This is why I favor a system of registered addicts being able to access enough to maintain at one time,and no more-that would help prevent OD's.I know this logic does not favor complete freedom,but I feel it is more realistic.

"Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives."

Chuckling-Because I am biased admittedly,I enjoy a beer now and again.My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals. I don't fear alcoholic beverage dealers to the degree I fear crack dealers.

Once again,thanks for the debate.I know this is taking your freep time up,and I've enjoyed it.

In one of my earlier posts I cited a reputable source that explained that crack is often so addictive that even one encounter with the substance can render some helpless against cravings for more.

Your source did NOT say "often." This illustrates where your "intuitions" about drugs come from---vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions.

"By that logic, everything that's dangerous for children should be banned for adults---alcohol, knives, cars, .... "

Why are these things not banned then?

Because your liberal "for the children" argument is bogus.

A majority of the public must not feel strongly that drugs should be legalized

No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body.

"Who is a majority to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?

Sounds a lot better than a small body of select individuals like the supreme court.

But much worse than letting adults decide for themselves. (Why did you drag in this red herring--when did I ever support letting the Supreme Court decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?)

I'm sure you have a basis for your feelings that the constitution entitles us to do drugs.

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs.

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?"

Laws exist in virtually every state and municipality that prohibit public drunkedness,DUII,and drinking in public.

The public gets to say what happens on its property. If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?

"Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief."

Never said they were unbiased.

Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."

"We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements."

Who is we? Supreme court,vote of American people,city councils,state goverment,elected officials?

All of the above.

Cite constitutional provisions-

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements. As for the rest, it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do.

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

Conservatives do generally argue with sound facts

And the sound facts do not support restricting adults' freedom to use drugs.

but in this particular case I feel in spite of the information you cite,somehow you end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization.

So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?

"Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening."

Good point-my obvious reply would be narcotics can kill you in a single minute.Different animal all together.

No, that does NOT make them "different altogether." Slow-acting poisons and fast-acting poisons are both poisons.

"Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?

"Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail)."

after the first 14 year old girl OD's on your good,pure dope,tell me what you will tell her mother when she comes in to let you know the dope you sold to John ended up in Jill's body.Even though you are just like an alcohol store and can't control where it all goes,will you feel good about selling your product?

How would I feel about selling John a bottle of booze that killed Jill? How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?

"Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property."

What difference does that make

The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property.

"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?"

Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics?

No---and I doubt that's true on a per-user basis.

Tolerance sets in and it's hard to know how fast.

That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes.

"Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives."

Chuckling-Because I am biased admittedly,I enjoy a beer now and again.

I'd applaud your honesty---but I'm too disgusted by your chuckling over your supporting the caging of non-rights-violating adults on the basis of your biases.

My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals.

You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim.