"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?
"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