Nothing about meth is safe-And virtually nothing about narcotics use is either.
Quit changing the subject---you were discussing manufacturing hazards.
In theory the usage of narcotics does not infringe upon the rights of others.But in practice it does have a profound effect on familys and others on the perimeter.
Those "effects" are not violations of rights; hence, they are none of the government's business.
Saying it does not effect the rights of others discounts your "natural laws" which would say we have the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happyness,and others would be deprived of this.
Nonsense; Joe's drug use deprives nobody else of their natural rights.
"The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim."
True-Tobbacco and alcohol are legal now though,and I'm not advocating prohibiting these substances again.I am entitled to my opinion that they are different animals
An opinion for which you have offered no evidence.
"Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional."(me)
"Not only then, but in all cases."
Where does a vote of the people fit into this I'm curious?
The people have no right to vote away the freedoms of individuals.
"I already defined it for you."(natural law)
I know that-but you are just one person and there could be many different interpretations of this concept.Envioro-greens could have a hayday with natural law it would seem.
The opinion of a majority is no less subjective than the opinion of a minority.
"If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD."
If used in the proper quantitys,this is true.Tolerance is a hard thing to gauge though.
It doesn't change much from one use to the next, so that couldn't cause ODs.
And addicts have a tendency to red-line it,trying to achieve strong effect and get really high.
This is relevant to ODs only if a lethal amount is only slightly greater than a "really high" amount. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?
This is what makes it dangerous.Most addicts are poly-drug users too,and I have no statistics on this,but that is an important point.
Why is that important? Alcohol is dangerous in combination with many other legal drugs; does that mean that alcohol, or those other legal drugs, should be banned?
"Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."
There are a great number of "anecdotal reports" exsisting,thats all I can say about this.
Anecdotal reports do not take into account the user's pre-existing mental condition---or his alcohol use.
"It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them"
No
I'm glad you agree.
"Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?"
This would indicate that report gets the gong.
False. The drugs mentioned by the report were well known.
Meth,PCP,Crack,all cause violent tendencys,take it from me-my time on the streets of big citys has made me well aware of that.
You are considerably less of an authority than the US Department of Justice; any rational person will take their research-based word over yours.
"If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs;"
I am assuming this is true
Then why were you talking about "chaos"?
"No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer"
Some thruth to this-but I think it's all about freedom-vs.-safety.
Joe's drug use, like his alcohol use, does not in and of itself threaten anyone else's safety.
Are you saying that legal heroin would not make it into the hands of teens?
It would most probably become less available to teens than it is now, since sellers would have a new economic incentive to not sell to teens---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult market.
"This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled."
Then why do people keep combining prescription drugs and alcohol.Could it be there are alot of stupid people who don't respect drugs out there?
Yes, there are---but labeling protects the many people that aren't that stupid, whereas banning drugs has not protected anyone.
"The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances."
So this is an assumption that they could possibly handle it improperly.I'm just trying to draw a correlation between this and reasonable measures to protect people from the harm of narcotics.Seems about the same approach to me.
An outright ban on drugs is VERY FAR FROM "about the same approach."
"It failed---what was your point?"
My point obviously was that a majority of people would likely not want Abdul's operation to even exsist anywhere.
So what?
"You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit."
Why should I have to-obviously they were.But the statistics I cited were not about air related visits.You know this.
I've already explained this (and you deleted the explanation): '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."'
And this particular statistic made alot more sense to me than the findings that claimed no correlation between drugs and violence I might add.
You mean it better fit your preconceptions.
"And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths",
"Yup---not government's business."
OK-I'm glad to hear that.Are you saying it is not the goverment's business to protect children from any potential harms that might result from this? Many people would say they should have an interest in doing so.
Children should be protected---as a ban on drugs for adults has failed to do.
"drugs getting into the hands of teens and children"(mine),
"We risk that with alcohol now."
Different animal argument again.
No evidence from you again.
"increased divorce rate and family problems,
Yup---not government's business."
This is a callous attitude.
That is quintessential liberal rhetoric.
This is the reason I'm asking you is this a freedom we would really desire?
Those who don't desire that freedom may simply refrain from exercising it.
"as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked."(mine)
"I don't understand what you're asking here."
Let me rephrase-I would not favor the experiment and it's likely results,but I am curious what the results would be if society felt the risks were worth the freedoms.
Society has no business restricting the risks that individuals impose on themselves. As to the results of legalizing drugs for adults, they would include a decrease or end to the following: innocents killed in drug-turf wars; user deaths due to contaminants and unexpectedly high purities; inflated prices that motivate crimes by users (whereas winos can get their next fix by collecting cans or panhandling); enriched criminals; and corruption of the justice system by criminals' riches.