Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle

Reuters ^

[RCW2001]

NEW YORK, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Three Israeli nationals were arrested and accused of trying to smuggle $42 million worth of hallucinogenic Ecstasy pills to the United States from Belgium, the largest such drug seizure ever in Europe, U.S. authorities said on Wednesday.

The three men tried to smuggle 1.4 million pills inside diamond polishing tables bound for New York by ship from Antwerp, according to a statement from the office of Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Tipped off by witnesses who saw two of the men stuffing the pills into three tables inside an Antwerp warehouse in August, authorities allowed the tables to be delivered -- without the pills -- to New York where they were put under surveillance.

The three men were arrested on Tuesday as they were retrieving the tables and trying to deliver the drugs to a buyer, the statement said.

The case marks the largest Ecstasy seizure in Europe and the third largest such seizure in the United States, with a wholesale value of about $14 million and a retail value of about $42 million, officials said.

Arrested were Nachshow Sinvanni, who allegedly wanted to buy 900,000 of the pills for distribution; and Ofir Lebar and Ofir Weizman, who were spotted packing the tables with drugs in Belgium, officials said. All three men live in Israel, authorities said.

They each were charged with conspiring to import MDMA, the technical name for Ecstasy and, if convicted, face a possible prison sentence of 20 years and a $1 million fine. ((New York newsdesk, 646 223 6280))

[Rocksalt]

"vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions."

Vague statements,hazily recalled,and colored preconceptions caused by watching so many people around me die or go down the tubes from the effects of drug use.The kind of thing you could obviously care less about.

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

OK-you are right.It is alright to ignore any ramifications of narcotics legalization,lets let free MDMA be given away on every streetcorner,it's only possible it might fall into the hands of children,but it's safe anyway..........

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

I notice you include the word ethical in there. Explain that if you could.

[Rocksalt]

"Supreme Court?"

Who ends up making a goodly number of the decisions affecting our lives? I never said you supported the power of the supreme court to decide what you can put in your body.Who ends up interpreting the constitution? Not you or me.I'm saying I'd rather let a majority decide these decisions,including drug reform,than the supreme court jesters.

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

How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?

"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?"

No-and I feel this should apply to drugs as well. I'm not going to try and mandate how much dope you can shoot in your own home.But I feel the distribution of narcotics should be as limited as possible due to many different concerns.

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

I'm not going to dispute that oftentimes scientific findings are quite meaningful.Some of my own research is quite valid,meaningful and cutting edge data.I'm not proporting to be an expert on every kind of research,but I know enough to tell you much research done in this world is funded by someone,and often has specific intentions,which may add an element of bias.Make one set of findings,get more money,make another,lose funding.Besides,how can you dispute that I have psychic powers?

"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."

Cite specifics if you could please.Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings,or Scalia?

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

I agree-but I would not support anyone being permitted to distribute narcotics,feds,private industry,or moon monkeys.Your black and white way of addressing this problem has led to myopia in that you ignore the big ugly picture drug use paints.If it was as simple as citizens simply possessing drugs in their own home,produced by themselves,it would be alot easier.That's the beauty of medical pot-anyone can grow it,and this is one of the reasons the drug company's and the feds hate the idea.They can't control it.If it was as simple as you sitting in your lazyboy snorting a line of coke and not affecting anyone,I'd say have a good time.You have the right to do anything you want with your own body-that's obvious.

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

The pants are fine.Lose the tye-died shirt though.(See-I'm starting to get this down-you might make a freeper out of me yet)

"Slow-acting poisons and fast-acting poisons are both poisons."

Yeah,but there's a big difference between black powder and nitro glycerine.Why should the federal goverment be able to restrict someone's rights to possess dynamite? Could it be potential harm? By your logic,fundamental ethics would permit virtually anything.

" 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 I'm interested in hearing your instincts and gut feelings about what you would be doing.Instead of seeing the issue in black and white terms,this will enable us to see if your moral fundamentals will allow you to sell the stuff.And you totally ducked the question........... That was question #1-number 2 is: If your permit gets denied for the narcotics store(since you have too many firearms around your house)are you happy that Abdul has opened up Abdul's House of Heroin next door to your house?

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

But why does it matter what arbitirary line is crossed if I'm not harming persons or property?

"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."

I can't cite figures on how many people ODed on prescription drugs-don't quite a few bite the dust after combining prescription drugs and alcohol?

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

Not in a single episode-what I meant is over time it is difficult to judge how tolerant to a substance a person has become.

"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."

Guess I've got some homework to do to further my arguments ........I'm confident I can produce some data that suggests my assertions are true.

[MrLeRoy]

"vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions."

Vague statements,hazily recalled,and colored preconceptions caused by watching so many people around me die or go down the tubes from the effects of drug use.

Seeing that so upset you that you now misquote yourself? I'm sorry to hear that.

I've seen people around me go down the tubes from the effects of alcohol use; is that a good reason to ban alcohol?

The kind of thing you could obviously care less about.

More liberal rhetoric: 'you don't care.' I say it's wrong to restrict the freedom of ALL adults because SOME adults use that freedom to harm themselves.

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

OK-you are right.

Manfully conceded.

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

I notice you include the word ethical in there. Explain that if you could.

I suppose it's redundant; I put it in to emphasize that I was speaking of authority and not power (which majorities usually have).

[MrLeRoy]

I never said you supported the power of the supreme court to decide what you can put in your body. [...] I'm saying I'd rather let a majority decide these decisions,including drug reform,than the supreme court jesters.

Tell you what---if the Supreme Court declares that drug use is mandatory, I'll be on your side against them. Barring that, it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court.

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

How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?

Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs.

"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?"

No-and I feel this should apply to drugs as well. I'm not going to try and mandate how much dope you can shoot in your own home. But I feel the distribution of narcotics should be as limited as possible

If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?

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

much research done in this world is funded by someone,and often has specific intentions,which may add an element of bias.

At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported.

"it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do."

Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings

If you like; if you don't like, then natural law. Do you deny that it's wrong to punish someone for what they MIGHT do?

If it was as simple as citizens simply possessing drugs in their own home,produced by themselves,it would be alot easier.

So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?

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

The pants are fine.Lose the tye-died shirt though.(See-I'm starting to get this down-you might make a freeper out of me yet)

You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?

Why should the federal goverment be able to restrict someone's rights to possess dynamite?

It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated).

" 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 I'm interested in hearing your instincts and gut feelings about what you would be doing. [...] this will enable us to see if your moral fundamentals will allow you to sell the stuff.

Your question is founded on a false premise---my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings.

If your permit gets denied for the narcotics store(since you have too many firearms around your house)are you happy that Abdul has opened up Abdul's House of Heroin next door to your house?

No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants.

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

But why does it matter what arbitirary line is crossed if I'm not harming persons or property?

The public can be as arbitrary as it wants in restricting the use of the public's property, just as I may be as arbitrary as I want in restricting the use of my property.

I can't cite figures on how many people ODed on prescription drugs-don't quite a few bite the dust after combining prescription drugs and alcohol?

Could be---but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether stabilizing drug purity decreases ODs.

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

Not in a single episode-what I meant is over time it is difficult to judge how tolerant to a substance a person has become.

Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose.

"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."

Guess I've got some homework to do to further my arguments ........I'm confident I can produce some data that suggests my assertions are true.

Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom.

[Rocksalt]

"I've seen people around me go down the tubes from the effects of alcohol use; is that a good reason to ban alcohol?"

Different substances-As I've asserted before,It's obvious alot more people use alcohol responsibly than Heroin and Crack.

"More liberal rhetoric: 'you don't care.' I say it's wrong to restrict the freedom of ALL adults because SOME adults use that freedom to harm themselves."

But are some restrictions worth it when talking about the lives of teen-agers and children?

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

Yeah but who defines ethical authority?

[Rocksalt]

"it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court."

OK-How is the majority imposing "tyranny" over you? Buy not raising hell over the current state of affairs concerning drug laws and possible reforms? It's the feds who are messing with the people down in Mendocino Co. who have passed laws permitting citizens to grow weed on their property.And this I would classify as victimless crime.

"How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?"(my comment)

"Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs."

You're telling me that not one case would have been able to set precedent in the whole country? Please cite what part of the constitution protects the right to use drugs?

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?"

You can do whatever you want in your own home.We agree there I believe.The federal goverment limits who sells alcohol because it provides some level of control.Maybe this approach would work with narcotics as well-I doubt it though,as they are different animals,which you refuse to admit.And it's obvious we are not going to agree on that point.

"At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported."

My claim that research often proves what gets it funded needs no support.I will admit this is not always the case.

"Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings

"If you like; if you don't like, then natural law. Do you deny that it's wrong to punish someone for what they MIGHT do?"

I'll consult my natural law attorney on this one.No,I would say it is not right to punish someone for something they might do.But do you deny it is reasonable to take reasonable means to prevent someone from doing harm to another? Example:DUII arrests?

"So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?"

I am not in favor of banning commercially produced alcohol.But it would take away alot of the profit motivation and TV commercials that keep people interested in it and buying.

"You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?"

Half a compliment-But I am no drug warrior,I just consider myself a conservative who is prudent about legalized drugs.I think your question provides it's own answer.Actually,I consider your opinions valid,and you have provided some decent logical reasons for them.As you can see,I am prudent about legalized narcotics though.

"It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated)."

OK-How about US citizens who are muslims fundamentalists? I have not heard any links between dynamite possession and violence-why should the states regulate possession of it either? All I can say is if you don't belive there is any link between Meth use and violence,you ain't been around areas where it's use is common.I don't care what the DOJ maintains-Not all people who use it are dangerous,but many are.Why facilitate it's use?

"my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings."

Anything can be justified if we have the will to justify it.

"No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants."

So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there.

"Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose."

Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001. I'm sure all these folks were in full realization of how much tolerance they had developed.

"Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom."

Speaking of homework,you should read report # NOJ188745 on the DOJ website you cited earlier.Seems as though they think MDMA is some pretty nasty medicine.Check out all the dangers and side effects they mention.I'll read more of their information when I have time-Thanks for your time-RS

[MrLeRoy]

It's obvious alot more people use alcohol responsibly than Heroin and Crack.

So how do you determine the cutoff point at which substance X's ratio of irresponsible use to all use makes it properly bannable? And where is the ethical justification for drawing such a line at all---who has the authority to protect adults from their own bad choices?

are some restrictions worth it when talking about the lives of teen-agers and children?

Providing drugs to minors should be illegal. But as I have shown, it is illegitimate to ban things for adults because they're dangerous for children: alcohol, kitchen knives, etc. are all dangerous for children.

who defines ethical authority?

Natural law. As a reasoning free-willed being, an adult human is capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, so nobody else has the right to dictate his ends to him.

[MrLeRoy]

"it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court."

OK-How is the majority imposing "tyranny" over you? [...] It's the feds who are messing with the people down in Mendocino Co. who have passed laws permitting citizens to grow weed on their property.

You have been arguing in support of anti-drug laws because they reflect the will of the majority. For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical.

"How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?"(my comment)

"Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs."

You're telling me that not one case would have been able to set precedent in the whole country?

Nothing like that. I'm saying that the liberal-dominated judiciary can't find the federal War On Some Drugs unconstitutional without acknowledging the relevance of the Tenth Amendment or the proper limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause---which would reveal the unconstitutionality of most liberal federal programs.

Please cite what part of the constitution protects the right to use 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 at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?"

You can do whatever you want in your own home.We agree there I believe.The federal goverment limits who sells alcohol because it provides some level of control.

The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way.

Maybe this approach would work with narcotics as well-I doubt it though,as they are different animals,which you refuse to admit.

You refuse to prove it.

"At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported."

My claim that research often proves what gets it funded needs no support.

Beside the point---it doesn't support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings," since instinct and intuition are at least as biased.

I would say it is not right to punish someone for something they might do.But do you deny it is reasonable to take reasonable means to prevent someone from doing harm to another? Example:DUII arrests?

DUI laws are based on the public's ownership of the roads; it's legal to drive dunk on one's own property.

"So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?"

I am not in favor of banning commercially produced alcohol.

Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs.

"You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?"

I think your question provides it's own answer.

False. Quit dodging the question.

"It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated)."

OK-How about US citizens who are muslims fundamentalists?

What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?

I have not heard any links between dynamite possession and violence-why should the states regulate possession of it either?

I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring."

I don't care what the DOJ maintains

The enemies of freedom seldom care about facts.

"my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings."

Anything can be justified if we have the will to justify it.

YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't.

"No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants."

So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there.

<yawn> Will you be sharing your insight, or just gloating over it?

"Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose."

Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001.

<snicker> ALL emergency room episodes are air-related---let's ban air.

"Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom."

Speaking of homework,you should read report # NOJ188745 on the DOJ website you cited earlier.Seems as though they think MDMA is some pretty nasty medicine.

So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.

[Rocksalt]

"For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical." I agree you should be able to do whatever you want,in your own home,as long as your not harming others.That is a non-argument. "I'm saying that the liberal-dominated judiciary can't find the federal War On Some Drugs unconstitutional without acknowledging the relevance of the Tenth Amendment" Yes I agree here too. As an example of this I would say the situation in Mendicino Co. is a good example.As well as California's medical pot law,and how the feds have raided medical pot facilitys,ignoring Calif. laws,enacted by a vote of the people. "The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs." Could you explain this a little more in detail? "The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way." I favor state regulation over federal control,didn't Arizona vote on drug legalization not long ago? I realize you feel a majority should not excercise control over individuals,but a vote of the people seemed like a good reasonable idea to me. Different animals? I refuse to prove it? How many people OD on alcohol,and how many OD on narcotics? Alcohol poisoning is not a really common form of death. "DUI laws are based on the public's ownership of the roads; it's legal to drive dunk on one's own property." I'm not saying that people should not be able to do what they want on their own property.No argument there-Fine-if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great. A penalty of life in prison for furnishing minors with narcotics would be an acceptable addition to ofset the possible dangers. "Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs." Maybe legally there isn't sound basis.Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms. "The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"? I understand the basis you base your argument on.I can see it is true that the federal goverment has no right to wage the WOD.But the actual ramifications of legalized drugs in my opinion must be examined from a position of the actual effect this would have.I think your arguments are actually much more meaningful than the typical liberal's which would also include passionate bleeding heart stuff about prisoners suffering due to the WOD. I commend your quest for freedoms,and I can clearly see you are not a liberal.I just don't favor easy access to narcotics for the general public,and you know this already.We need to find a way to end the WOD,but not open up the floodgates at the same time. "What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?" No-Muslim fundamentalists possessing dynamite illegally,yes. Seems there are alot of freepers out there who would favor a general round-up of Muslims,but I think internment would be a bad idea. "I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring." I'll accept that,and admit defeat on that one,but by that logic shouldn't gas ovens be prohibited too? "I don't care what the DOJ maintains" "The enemies of freedom seldom care about facts" Well from reading that website it seems facts point out the number of drug related hospital "incidents" is enormous. "YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't." Your perception that I am opposed to "drug freedoms" is false.I am opposed to the ramifications of providing the general public with easy access to narcotics that is true.I feel you are unrealistic,that's true too. "So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there." " Will you be sharing your insight, or just gloating over it?" Just seeing here that if even you don't want Abdul's heroin emporium next door,most people won't want it within 3500 miles of them. "Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001." I see you can blow off the facts and figures as easily as you can cite them. "So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.(refering to MDMA page) No,it talks more about destroyed minds.If the only side effect of MDMA was people hugging each other and holding pacifiers in their mouths,it wouldn't be much to worry about.I can't see how you can offer this stuff even one bit of support.

[Rocksalt]

Last post did not seem to post correctly,although it did preview OK.???


"So how do you determine the cutoff point at which substance X's ratio of irresponsible use to all use makes it properly bannable? And where is the ethical justification for drawing such a line at all---who has the authority to protect adults from their own bad choices?"

Good question.I would say the cutoff point could possibly be determined by the weight of the particular substance's lethal dose.Any thing that can cause death at under a certain level,such as one gram,would be cutoff.My ethics would steer me towards preventing harms.I have no authority,but I do have a desire to use common sense and reasonable prudence around deadly poisons.

"Providing drugs to minors should be illegal"

As I said before,a life sentence for providing them to minors under say 16 would be an excellent provision to include with any possible drug legalization plan.There must be deterrents.


"Natural law".Once again,who defines this?

"As a reasoning free-willed being, an adult human is capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, so nobody else has the right to dictate his ends to him."

Only problem with this is many adults do not reason well.Their reasoning processes end up leading them to infringe upon the rights of others.I can't get behind legalizing narcotics.Cannibus is one thing,as is it relatively safe.It's obvious that many millions of people use it quite safely.Narcotics do not have that same track record though.

[MrLeRoy]

I would say the cutoff point could possibly be determined by the weight of the particular substance's lethal dose.Any thing that can cause death at under a certain level,such as one gram,would be cutoff.

By that rule we could not sell many household cleaners, bug sprays, weed killers, etc. And any drug could be made to pass this test by being sufficiently diluted.

My ethics would steer me towards preventing harms.I have no authority,but I do have a desire to use common sense and reasonable prudence around deadly poisons.

How can you enforce YOUR "common sense and reasonable prudence" on others with no authority?

"Natural law".Once again,who defines this?

Already defined; see immediately below.

"As a reasoning free-willed being, an adult human is capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, so nobody else has the right to dictate his ends to him."

Only problem with this is many adults do not reason well.Their reasoning processes end up leading them to infringe upon the rights of others.

Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others.

[MrLeRoy]

if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great.

Finally, you've come around to the freedom-loving way of thinking. We're always ready to welcome a convert.

[Rocksalt]

"Finally, you've come around to the freedom-loving way of thinking. We're always ready to welcome a convert."

If people want to go home and shoot up junk,great,but I still have not seen any proposals for distributing the stuff that would be acceptable to me.And I doubt I will.

[Rocksalt]

"By that rule we could not sell many household cleaners, bug sprays, weed killers, etc. And any drug could be made to pass this test by being sufficiently diluted."

You're degenerating here.The poisons you mentioned are not intended for people to shoot them up in their arms.And as I've said before,people want the strongest stuff they can get their hands on.Dilute it and they will just refine it again.

"How can you enforce YOUR "common sense and reasonable prudence" on others with no authority? "

I'm not.I'm just expessing my opinions and trying to involve common sense in them.Give it a try sometime.Things are not always black and white.The WOD is an attempt at protecting the citizens from harm at it's foundation,it has obviously had some negative implications,but it developed as a response to serious problems.We need to get rid of the WOD,and not institute total chaos at the same time.

"Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others."

Your appocalyptic vision here scares me.Sure in theory this is true,but in reality,many people's quality of life would degrade as a result of knowing or being related to or involved with the aftermath.I just can't buy into your dream here,sorry.

[MrLeRoy]

I still have not seen any proposals for distributing the stuff that would be acceptable to me.

You, in your previous post: "if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great."

I haven't seen this many flips since the last time I went to the circus.

[MrLeRoy]

The poisons you mentioned are not intended for people to shoot them up in their arms.

Irrelevant---people have sought highs from many substances not intended for that purpose.

And as I've said before,people want the strongest stuff they can get their hands on.Dilute it and they will just refine it again.

Utter ignorant rubbish---ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it. You still haven't done your homework, but are relying on "instinct," "intutition," and "caring"---just like a liberal.

I'm just expessing my opinions and trying to involve common sense in them.

When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?

in reality,many people's quality of life would degrade as a result of knowing or being related to or involved with the aftermath.

This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality.

[MrLeRoy]

"For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical."

I agree you should be able to do whatever you want,in your own home,as long as your not harming others.That is a non-argument.

Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others.

"I'm saying that the liberal-dominated judiciary can't find the federal War On Some Drugs unconstitutional without acknowledging the relevance of the Tenth Amendment"

Yes I agree here too. As an example of this I would say the situation in Mendicino Co. is a good example.As well as California's medical pot law,and how the feds have raided medical pot facilitys,ignoring Calif. laws,enacted by a vote of the people.

So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws.

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

Could you explain this a little more in detail?

Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none.

"The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way."

I realize you feel a majority should not excercise control over individuals,but a vote of the people seemed like a good reasonable idea to me.

Acts of tyranny always seem "reasonable" to the ones imposing them. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny.

Different animals? I refuse to prove it? How many people OD on alcohol,and how many OD on narcotics?

As I've shown, ODs are largely caused by anti-drug laws.

Alcohol poisoning is not a really common form of death.

You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen).

"Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs."

Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.

Still waiting for evidence ....

I can see it is true that the federal goverment has no right to wage the WOD.But the actual ramifications of legalized drugs in my opinion must be examined from a position of the actual effect this would have.

So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?

We need to find a way to end the WOD,but not open up the floodgates at the same time.

What we need to do is obey the Constitution. And I see no reason to believe that there are any "floodgates"---nobody I know is itching to start using heroin.

"What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?"

No-Muslim fundamentalists possessing dynamite illegally,yes.

American Muslim fundamentalists who have not been convicted of any crime should have the same rights as any other American; I do not support a general right of any American to possess dynamite, for reasons I have explained (see below).

"I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring."

I'll accept that,and admit defeat on that one,but by that logic shouldn't gas ovens be prohibited too?

My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage.

Well from reading that website it seems facts point out the number of drug related hospital "incidents" is enormous.

See a few lines below for my dissection of that nonsense.

"YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't."

Your perception that I am opposed to "drug freedoms" is false.I am opposed to the ramifications of providing the general public with easy access to narcotics

What do you imagine "drug freedom" means, then?

even you don't want Abdul's heroin emporium next door,most people won't want it within 3500 miles of them.

What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business.

Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001.

I see you can blow off the facts and figures as easily as you can cite them.

No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."

"So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.(refering to MDMA page)

No,it talks more about destroyed minds.

Alcohol does that too.

I can't see how you can offer this stuff even one bit of support.

I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks.

[TopQuark]

An uninteresting article. But where is the propaganda?

Yours is a common misconception: whether something constitutes propaganda cannot be deduced from the content of the material. Reflect on it.

And, at the same time, don't impute the motives to people: another well-known trap.

[Rocksalt]

"You, in your previous post: "if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great."

"I haven't seen this many flips since the last time I went to the circus."

People using drugs in their own home is one thing,I'm saying that I have not seen an acceptable method of distribution proposed.No flip there.You seem to have this clouded vision that makes you believe people are going to act responsibly once they have access to the legal drugs.I just don't think this will be the case.