Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle

Reuters ^

[MrLeRoy]

"For SOME people, fine. SOME people are susceptible to sugar addiction; should we ban sugar?"

Your comparisons are degenerating at a progessive rate.

When you can't rebut the argument, hurl an insult. You've learned well from your Nanny-Statist mentors.

"Why compare the ONSET of crack addiction to LATE STATE alcohol addiction?"

Any stage of crack addiction is comparable to late stage alcoholism,

So you claim. Why should we believe you?

in fact it is worse,as alcoholics are not known nearly as much for their criminal behavior relating to their addiction.It takes alot more money to fuel a crack addiction than an alcohol addiction.

That's solely because crack is illegal. Thanks for bringing up this powerful anti-WOD argument.

"As I say in post 65, "I advocate a LESSENING of state controls."

You merely advocate a shifting of state control,

No, a lessening---regulation is less intrusive than prohibition.

and at the same time would favor greater availability of deadly poisons to youth

Doubtful. Kids can now get pot more easily than cigarettes or beer; and legalizing drugs for adults would give sellers a new economic incentive to not sell to kids---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult sales.

"Police should protect individuals from all violence."

Too bad they can't be everywhere at once.

Straw man---I never said they could. Are you saying that we should ban nonviolent acts that MIGHT lead to violence? Then by your logic we should ban all gun sales.

"There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."

That is goverment horsepucky.Likely written by a liberal researcher who is making a hundred grand a year to spit that garage out.

You don't know who wrote it, but you know he's a "liberal." That's the Drug Warrior's anti-rational mindset in a nutshell.

Any 15 year old kid in Riverside CA.,the crank capitol of the US can tell you meth freaks commonly get very violent.I have seen PCP users who spin out of control,and it sometimes takes 6 cops to control their superhuman strength.

From the same USDoJ report: "Preexisting psychosis appears to account for occasional violent outbursts by people who are under the influence of amphetamines or hallucinogens, especially PCP. While these drugs are well known to cause disorganized, bizarre behavior, they trigger violence in very few people who are not also psychotic."

[MrLeRoy]

"Narcotics kill far more people than guns."

"Provide evidence for your claim."

Actually I found guns do kill slightly more people than drugs-big deal-

Ah, so if drugs killed more people the comparison would have been important, but since guns kill more people the comparison is unimportant. Very interesting how that works.

What is the value of drugs to society

Wrong question---a person's body belongs to that person, not to society, so the decision as to the "value" of drugs put into that body belongs to the person, not to society.

Drugs are a drain on society,with many hidden costs,lost work,

That's between the employee and employer; it's none of society's business.

diseases,deaths,hundreds of thousands of emergency room visits,wasted lives etc.

Self-inflicted harm is none of society's business. And if society is paying for any of these, that's society's choice---society should stop picking up the tab, rather than use SOME people's misuse of drugs to punish OTHER people's use of drugs.

"Then explain why, with 500,000 traffic deaths per year, "common sense" doesn't dictate that we ban cars."

Autos serve an actual useful function,whereas drugs detract from peoples functions most of the time.

A person's body and "functions" belongs to that person, not to society, so the decision as to the "value" of drugs put into that body belongs to the person, not to society.

Leaving it up to private industry or the goverment to produce and control the production of narcotics would only give them incentive to promote and profit off their use.

Nothing wrong with profit; as for promotion, that can be banned (as it is restricted for tobacco).

If we are going to cease the WOD,lets just cease it and let natural forces take over,NO GOVERMENT CONTROL.That would be the only true way to insure freedom from further goverment control over our lives. [...] I think we would be better off with none rather than a shifting of controls.

As much as you want to make the best the enemy of the good, it's an invalid rule and I'm not playing that game. Legalize and regulate---it works for the drugs alcohol and tobacco, and it can work for other drugs too.

[MrLeRoy]

Too much tobacco and alcohol kills (yes) and so does too much sun or too much fat in the diet etc and etc.

Yes, so by the criterion YOU stated, "dangerous to health," all should be banned. It's YOUR argument---YOU live with it.

No, the negative impact of drugs is fearsome, insidious and largely immediate.

Reefer Madness/DEA rhetoric. Have any facts to back this up?

It breeds, murder, robberies, and crime generally....

That's because they're illegal---alcohol bred murder, robberies, and crime generally when it was illegal. Thanks for reminding us of this powerful argument AGAINST the War On Some Drugs.

Only sophists would rank drugs no more dangerous to society as tobacco.

What about alcohol?

[rmvh]

My statement: the negative impact of drugs is fearsome, insidious and largely immediate. (your reply is...Have any facts to back this up? )

WoW!!!.... You must be living in a cocoon or enjoying so really bad stuff.

[MrLeRoy]

In other words, no, you have no facts to back up your rabid rhetoric. Thanks for clarifying that.

[Bush2000]

legalize them

Yeah, rrrrrrright. That'll solve allllllll of our drug problems ... /SARCASM

[MrLeRoy]

Yeah, rrrrrrright. That'll solve allllllll of our drug problems

It'll solve the many serious problems CREATED by the War On Some Drugs. As for the problem of people ruining their lives with drugs---what makes you think government is authorized or competent to solve that problem? The War On Some Drugs certainly hasn't solved it.

[Bush2000]

It'll solve the many serious problems CREATED by the War On Some Drugs. As for the problem of people ruining their lives with drugs---what makes you think government is authorized or competent to solve that problem? The War On Some Drugs certainly hasn't solved it.

Drug abuse is a problem without a solution. And doing nothing is worse than trying to limit the supply.

[rmvh]

The "facts" that "back up" the horror and damage that drugs have wrought on America can be seen in the asylums, graveyards, and prisons throughout America...."Facts" that apparently escape your capacity to comprehend.

[rmvh]

The "facts" that "back up" the horror and damage that drugs have wrought on America can be seen in the asylums, graveyards, and prisons throughout America...."Facts" that apparently escape your capacity to comprehend.

[MrLeRoy]

Drug abuse is a problem without a solution.

Exactly---so why are Drug Warriors pretending otherwise?

And doing nothing is worse than trying to limit the supply.

False; that "cure" is worse than the disease, just as Prohibition was.

[MrLeRoy]

The "facts" that "back up" the horror and damage that drugs have wrought on America can be seen in the asylums, graveyards, and prisons throughout America....

Asylums, graveyards, and prisons are full of alcoholics, too; should we ban alcohol?

[Rocksalt]

"That's solely because crack is illegal."

The cravings caused by crack are much more intense than alcohol.These will not go away suddenly if it became legal.

"Any stage of crack addiction is comparable to late stage alcoholism"

"So you claim. Why should we believe you?"

I would consider it worse-since it fuels alot more crime.

"Doubtful. Kids can now get pot more easily than cigarettes or beer; and legalizing drugs for adults would give sellers a new economic incentive to not sell to kids---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult sales."

An economic incentive not to sell to kids does not mean it will not continue to reach their hand-just like it does now,except it will be more readily available.

"From the same USDoJ report: "Preexisting psychosis appears to account for occasional violent outbursts by people who are under the influence of amphetamines or hallucinogens, especially PCP. While these drugs are well known to cause disorganized, bizarre behavior, they trigger violence in very few people who are not also psychotic."

I'll agree these drugs are known to cause disorganized,bizarre behavior,but I think they trigger alot more violent behavior than statistics claim. They are deadly poisons and this is the reason I do not favor legal access for anyone who wants them.I will continue to support legal access to a system of registered addicts.I'm running out of time tonight,but will get back to your other post soon.

[Rocksalt]

"Ah, so if drugs killed more people the comparison would have been important, but since guns kill more people the comparison is unimportant. Very interesting how that works."

All I'm saying here is drugs do not serve the samt type of valuable function as firearms do.Therefore I deem this to be not a worthy comparison.

"Wrong question---a person's body belongs to that person, not to society, so the decision as to the "value" of drugs put into that body belongs to the person, not to society."

That is true,but this must be balanced against the relative harm an individuals choices inflict on others.Individuals rights vs. harm to others directly or indirectly.

"That's between the employee and employer; it's none of society's business."

That infers what I am saying is true-there are many hidden costs to society,and the productivity of our workplaces.I agree with you at the root level.But I think the overall impacts legal narcotics(and you notice I use the term narcotics,which does not include pot)might have on societal health are worth looking at.

"Self-inflicted harm is none of society's business. And if society is paying for any of these, that's society's choice---society should stop picking up the tab, rather than use SOME people's misuse of drugs to punish OTHER people's use of drugs."

Thats a great idea,but fortunatly I think most people care a little more about their fellow human beings than that aproach would demand.If a 17 year old kid showed up in an emergency room for overdose treatment,they are going to save his life,what would a hospital do,let the kid die if he had no insurance or other way to pay.

"A person's body and "functions" belongs to that person, not to society, so the decision as to the "value" of drugs put into that body belongs to the person, not to society."

This would infer we only have responsibility to our own selves.As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others.And drug users have proven themselves to be a very irresponsible group of individuals.If people could use drugs and not impact others,what you are saying would be workable,buts thats not the way it is in reality.

"Nothing wrong with profit; as for promotion, that can be banned (as it is restricted for tobacco)."

I have serious issues against profiting off people's demise.Banning advertising would be more goverment controls and laws.I'm against the WOD,but I believe narcotics are not a product that should be sold at all,especially under the control of the goverment.Although I will admit goverment officials like Ollie North have proved themselves quite capable of getting quality cocaine into the US in the past.

"As much as you want to make the best the enemy of the good, it's an invalid rule and I'm not playing that game. Legalize and regulate---it works for the drugs alcohol and tobacco, and it can work for other drugs too."

I've got news for you-it's not working real well with the substances that are legal at this point.I think the "law of the jungle" although a far fetched idea at this point,would better control the drug menace than goverment regulation.Armed citizens would make drug dealer's lives hell,and it would'nt be a pretty scenario with lots of collateral damages,but you would quickly see a marked reduction in people willing to risk selling drugs to others.

[MrLeRoy]

"That's solely because crack is illegal."

The cravings caused by crack are much more intense than alcohol.These will not go away suddenly if it became legal.

It's not the cravings that cause the crime; alcoholics have intense cravings but commit much less crime than crack addicts, BECAUSE their drug is legal and therefore easier to afford without crime.

"Doubtful. Kids can now get pot more easily than cigarettes or beer; and legalizing drugs for adults would give sellers a new economic incentive to not sell to kids---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult sales."

An economic incentive not to sell to kids does not mean it will not continue to reach their hand-just like it does now,except it will be more readily available.

You've provided no facts or logic to support your position; I've provided facts and logic to support my position. Advantage, me.

"From the same USDoJ report: "Preexisting psychosis appears to account for occasional violent outbursts by people who are under the influence of amphetamines or hallucinogens, especially PCP. While these drugs are well known to cause disorganized, bizarre behavior, they trigger violence in very few people who are not also psychotic."

I think they trigger alot more violent behavior than statistics claim.

Another Drug Warrior who knows more than the USDoJ about drugs. <yawn>

[MrLeRoy]

"A person's body and "functions" belongs to that person, not to society, so the decision as to the "value" of drugs put into that body belongs to the person, not to society."

This would infer we only have responsibility to our own selves.As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others.

That says it all for your phony "consevatism." Since we have now established that yours is not a conservative position, I have only this left to say:

it's not working real well with the substances that are legal at this point.I think the "law of the jungle" [...]would better control the drug menace than goverment regulation.Armed citizens would make drug dealer's lives hell

The logical conclusion from what you write above is that armed citizens should also be free to make the lives of legal substance dealers hell. Hardly a conservative position.

[Rocksalt]

"That says it all for your phony "consevatism." Since we have now established that yours is not a conservative position, I have only this left to say:"

You have your opinion,I have mine.

"The logical conclusion from what you write above is that armed citizens should also be free to make the lives of legal substance dealers hell. Hardly a conservative position."

Just stick with your position of trading one form of goverment control for another.If that's your solution,fine.

As I pointed out in an earlier post,in my own area there was a case where a father felt his daughter was in danger from a drug dealer,the police were not helpful,after he established the dealer was a threat,he took matters into his own hands.The police and courts ended up ruling he was justified in his actions.I'm not personally ready to do this,but I'm sure it made alot of dealers think twice.I never once said anything about legal substances.Don't put words in my mouth,or infer things I'm not actually saying.

[Rocksalt]

"It's not the cravings that cause the crime; alcoholics have intense cravings but commit much less crime than crack addicts, BECAUSE their drug is legal and therefore easier to afford without crime."

And because the cravings caused by crack are much more intense.Answer me this-Since alcohol is legal and there are millions of americans who use it responsibly,would you also assert there are millions of americans who could use crack responsibly? Keep in mind it is highly addictive.

"An economic incentive not to sell to kids does not mean it will not continue to reach their hand-just like it does now,except it will be more readily available."

"You've provided no facts or logic to support your position; I've provided facts and logic to support my position. Advantage, me."

Don't need to provide facts on this one-common sense tells me it's true.

" think they trigger alot more violent behavior than statistics claim."

"Another Drug Warrior who knows more than the USDoJ about drugs."

Sorry,no drug warriors here.As I have stated before,I think access for a system of registered addicts would be much preferable to access for anyone who desired narcotics.I am fully aware the WOD is a losing proposition.And I have certainly discussed this issue with many conservatives who feel the same way I do.And I have also heard the arguments of many pro-drug persons who use much the same logic as you do. You raise many good points,but I don't think your approach would end up being optimal.

[MrLeRoy]

"That says it all for your phony "consevatism." Since we have now established that yours is not a conservative position, I have only this left to say:"

You have your opinion,

Which is a conservative one.

I have mine.

Which is a liberal one.

"The logical conclusion from what you write above is that armed citizens should also be free to make the lives of legal substance dealers hell. Hardly a conservative position."

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

Still telling this lie? Shame on you.

I never once said anything about legal substances.

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

Don't put words in my mouth,or infer things I'm not actually saying.

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

[MrLeRoy]

the cravings caused by crack are much more intense.

You have yet to provide any evidence for this claim.

Answer me this-Since alcohol is legal and there are millions of americans who use it responsibly,would you also assert there are millions of americans who could use crack responsibly?

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.

"You've provided no facts or logic to support your position; I've provided facts and logic to support my position. Advantage, me."

Don't need to provide facts on this one-common sense tells me it's true.

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