"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.
"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?