Post: #301

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  whenever Nixon or Reagan used the term "war on drugs", it was a rhetorical frame in which the sacrifice of individual liberty seemed necessary, nor do they realize how this tears society apart.

Explain to me how this tears society apart. But before you do, read some relevant words from Theodore Dalrymple.

Theodore Dalrymple Wrote:In claiming that prohibition, not the drugs themselves, is the problem, Nadelmann and many others—even policemen—have said that “the war on drugs is lost.” But to demand a yes or no answer to the question “Is the war against drugs being won?” is like demanding a yes or no answer to the question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Never can an unimaginative and fundamentally stupid metaphor have exerted a more baleful effect upon proper thought.

Pay very close attention to the words bolded and highlighted in red.

Post: #302

(01-10-2017 03:55 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  The problem with your argument is that if drugs were legalized, you would have less violent junkies looking to rob ordinary citizens, not more. One of the main reasons junkies need to steal to support their habits is because prohibition drives drug prices so high that junkies can no longer afford their fixes without resorting to robbery.

When was the last time you heard about an alcoholic mugging someone on the street in order to get money for booze? A cheap bottle of vodka (big enough to keep you drunk all day) costs under $10. A heroin addict, on the other hand, has to spend $50-$100 per day to support his habit. The reason for this is that prohibition artificially drives up prices. When you buy illegal drugs, you are not only paying for the drug itself, but also for the risk involved in selling it to you. A drug dealer is literally risking his life every time he sells a bag, so obviously he needs to be compensated for that risk.

We have a real fundamental enjoyment of changing the way our brain operates and for as long as that is true, you have demand. You don't have to be a capitalist, you don't have to be an economist to know that where there is demand, there is supply. And so a naturally-occurring plant that can be easily grown in any backyard suddenly becomes worth thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars a pound because you're compensating the producers and the transporters for the risk of going to jail, or being shot, or other things that happen to people involved in criminal activity. What criminalization advocates never stop to consider is where all that revenue generated end up.

Post: #303

(01-10-2017 10:47 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 08:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Huh.

(01-07-2017 08:29 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  Kofi Annan makes an excellent argument in his essay:

Why I’m Calling to End the War on Drugs

Annan's argument is not his own. It is reheated from other sources, none of which are apparent from his essay. It doesn't come from his own experience. Using him in particular is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad auctoritatem, or resort to authority, trying to convince us that the guy's argument is good just because he happened to be black and got elected to a high-profile position ... one without any actual, accountable responsibility in achieving any of the goals he sought out, one might add.

What I did was to read the essay, and to come to a conclusion of my own that it is quite excellent, objectively. The fact that the author was Kofi Annan had nothing to do with it. I am quite surprised as to how you are able to make this assertion so readily.

You on the other hand, seem to regard the man with intense disdain, which clearly affects how you approach his arguments. I even wondered, at one point, whether the thread had switched from one concerning Drug Policy, to one discussing Kofi Annan's failures.

Quote:First question: who the fuck is Kofi Annan and why should we give a fuck about what he has to say on global drug policies?

Argumentum ad odium. I should have just stopped reading your post at this point because in my experience it only gets sentimental from here. I did continue anyway, hoping you'd surprise me. But not a single factual, or logical counter-argument is made throughout. Nor do you suggest any reasonable, well-thought out solution to the near zero progress that the war on drugs has made, given how long it has gone on.

I suggest you somehow approach the essay as though it was written by somebody other than Kofi Annan, critically analyze the current evidence, and come up with a more objective counter-argument.

What you're doing right now is what we call flouncing, sport. Try not to do it much here, it doesn't advance your credibility.

Your own post says Kofi Annan makes an excellent argument. Why did you mention his name if not to glean some credibility for the view off his status as former head of the UN? As demonstrated, his argument is neither excellent nor his own: it's collected from other, unreferenced sources, and it's replete with rhetorical appeals to roughly everything except scientific method.

And by the way, it's not argumentum ad odium. That part of my post you quoted is identifying your argumentum ad auctoritatem: who is saying this to me, and why should I be more inclined to believe what is said because it's coming from this person?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #304

(01-10-2017 03:55 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...
I'm assuming your argument is that if drugs were decriminalized, you would have more junkies roaming the streets looking to rob ordinary citizens in order to get their fix (which is why you're saying we need total decriminalization of self-defense before we can legalize drugs).

The problem with your argument is that if drugs were legalized, you would have less violent junkies looking to rob ordinary citizens, not more. One of the main reasons junkies need to steal to support their habits is because prohibition drives drug prices so high that junkies can no longer afford their fixes without resorting to robbery.

When was the last time you heard about an alcoholic mugging someone on the street in order to get money for booze? A cheap bottle of vodka (big enough to keep you drunk all day) costs under $10. A heroin addict, on the other hand, has to spend $50-$100 per day to support his habit. The reason for this is that prohibition artificially drives up prices. When you buy illegal drugs, you are not only paying for the drug itself, but also for the risk involved in selling it to you. A drug dealer is literally risking his life every time he sells a bag, so obviously he needs to be compensated for that risk.

Additionally, under drug prohibition (and the artificially inflated drug prices that go along with it), it is highly profitable to be a black market dealer. This makes neighborhoods less safe, not more.

If anything, we should be demanding the government decriminalize all forms of self-defense if they want to keep drugs illegal. If drugs were legalized, there would be less violent crime to worry about, not more.

This is somewhat epic. You've not only created a strawman but you've slapped a "made by Leonard" sticker on it and done a lengthy takedown. No offence, but I cannot in good conscience encourage you to rehash these same arguments by rebutting your rebuttal to my imaginary argument.

You're well written, but a word of advice. If you find yourself using the term "I assume that you..." then stop your train of thought, step back and find better footing.

Quote:There were some people arguing that we should "forcefully send drug users to rehab, not jail." To me, that sounds like they are advocating the continuation of prohibition in order to help the addict.

If you're against sending drug users to jail, then why support forcefully sending them to rehab?

I was originally against sending drug users to jail as I was originally against prohibition for most of the reasons you have outlined, however Ghost Tiger has made me realise that my stance was incorrect for most of the reasons he has outlined previously.

Quote:I'd be happy to have deeper arguments and go into detail about why I think prohibition in general is bad (not just for addicts, bur for society as a whole), but first I wanted to address some of the more ridiculous arguments, namely that prohibition, mandatory rehab, etc., is actually helpful to addicts.

Now that we all seem to be on the same page that prohibition is not helpful to addicts and users, I'd be happy to discuss why I don't think prohibition is helpful to non-users, either.

The truth that I've come to is that frankly I don't give a shit about addicts. Not in the sense that I don't care about them doing drugs, but in the sense that I don't care about their rights and their outcomes.

Drug users are by and large deadbeat losers who ugly up our society and leech disproportionately on every social welfare program, rarely turning their lives around to become net contributors to society, and almost completely invariably they will contribute far below the expected average.

Making drugs illegal, including cannabis, is about saying "we do not condone this in our community, in our city, in our state, in our nation". The penalties are there because without them the law is meaningless. Without the law there is no basis to infer that society does not condone the partaking of those drugs. You can make what inferences you like about alcohol but most alcoholics I've known were better contributors to society despite their addiction than most of the recreational pot smokers I ever knew, and I knew a lot. How they differ in terms of damage caused to the user is irrelevant to me. For whatever reason alcohol doesn't often seem to ruin societal workhorses while pot seems to create life long social parasites.

I will never condone paedophilia, regardless of "consent" and how many studies tell me it's not really that bad, and that prohibition of it creates a black market where terrible things happen, and that locking up paedos will harm the paedo and the child more than allowing them to simply be together.

I no longer condone marijuana use, regardless of how many studies tell me it's not really that bad, and that prohibition of it creates a black market where terrible things happen, and that locking up pot-heads will harm the pot-heads more than allowing them to simply smoke pot.

It's not so much about the paedo or the pot head.

It's about the kind of culture I want to live in and the kind of civilisation I want to build for future generations.

Post: #305

(01-10-2017 08:33 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  ...What criminalization advocates never stop to consider is where all that revenue generated end up.

And there you have but one more thinly veiled insult that that basement dwelling gamma academics can't seem to help but weave into their appeals.

Of course! Criminalisation advocates are only so inclined because they are too stupid to take all of the factors into account!

"Only people on my side have a complete understanding of the issue. After all. What criminalization advocates never stop to consider is where all that revenue generated end up."

Post: #306

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Most criminalisation advocates here seem to be debating that drug users typically ugly up the place, leech off the system and sometimes become thieves, muggers and killers. The argument is that the liberties of those that don't offend are too high a price to pay for the suffering caused to others by the fate of those drug users who cannot control or legally support their addictions.

But where are the facts that support this argument? Where are the bodies? Where are the numbers?
...

Fact: I don't like pot-heads

Fact: I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.

Fact: The above two facts are facts.

Fact: The third fact is also factual in nature.

Post: #307

Give money to Trump, you'll get a building - or something else that's beautiful.

Give money to an artist, you'll get something beautiful.

Give money to a drug addict, and you'll get nothing.

Post: #308

(01-11-2017 05:15 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:33 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  ...What criminalization advocates never stop to consider is where all that revenue generated end up.

And there you have but one more thinly veiled insult that that basement dwelling gamma academics can't seem to help but weave into their appeals.

Of course! Criminalisation advocates are only so inclined because they are too stupid to take all of the factors into account!

"Only people on my side have a complete understanding of the issue. After all. What criminalization advocates never stop to consider is where all that revenue generated end up."

Sssshhhhhhhh! Leonard! You'll upset the secret king! He NEVER loses!

Post: #309

(01-11-2017 05:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:55 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...
I'm assuming your argument is that if drugs were decriminalized, you would have more junkies roaming the streets looking to rob ordinary citizens in order to get their fix (which is why you're saying we need total decriminalization of self-defense before we can legalize drugs).

The problem with your argument is that if drugs were legalized, you would have less violent junkies looking to rob ordinary citizens, not more. One of the main reasons junkies need to steal to support their habits is because prohibition drives drug prices so high that junkies can no longer afford their fixes without resorting to robbery.

When was the last time you heard about an alcoholic mugging someone on the street in order to get money for booze? A cheap bottle of vodka (big enough to keep you drunk all day) costs under $10. A heroin addict, on the other hand, has to spend $50-$100 per day to support his habit. The reason for this is that prohibition artificially drives up prices. When you buy illegal drugs, you are not only paying for the drug itself, but also for the risk involved in selling it to you. A drug dealer is literally risking his life every time he sells a bag, so obviously he needs to be compensated for that risk.

Additionally, under drug prohibition (and the artificially inflated drug prices that go along with it), it is highly profitable to be a black market dealer. This makes neighborhoods less safe, not more.

If anything, we should be demanding the government decriminalize all forms of self-defense if they want to keep drugs illegal. If drugs were legalized, there would be less violent crime to worry about, not more.

This is somewhat epic. You've not only created a strawman but you've slapped a "made by Leonard" sticker on it and done a lengthy takedown. No offence, but I cannot in good conscience encourage you to rehash these same arguments by rebutting your rebuttal to my imaginary argument.

You're well written, but a word of advice. If you find yourself using the term "I assume that you..." then stop your train of thought, step back and find better footing.

The reason I used the phrase "I assume your argument is..." is precisely because I am assuming (i.e. pretty sure but not 100% sure) that that was your argument. If I was wrong, please feel free to correct me.

You said that if drugs were legalized, we would first need to legalize self-defense by any means. I assumed you meant this was because legalized drugs would lead to more violence and more robberies. Is this not what you meant? If not, what did you mean?

(01-11-2017 05:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote:There were some people arguing that we should "forcefully send drug users to rehab, not jail." To me, that sounds like they are advocating the continuation of prohibition in order to help the addict.

If you're against sending drug users to jail, then why support forcefully sending them to rehab?

I was originally against sending drug users to jail as I was originally against prohibition for most of the reasons you have outlined, however Ghost Tiger has made me realise that my stance was incorrect for most of the reasons he has outlined previously.

Quote:I'd be happy to have deeper arguments and go into detail about why I think prohibition in general is bad (not just for addicts, bur for society as a whole), but first I wanted to address some of the more ridiculous arguments, namely that prohibition, mandatory rehab, etc., is actually helpful to addicts.

Now that we all seem to be on the same page that prohibition is not helpful to addicts and users, I'd be happy to discuss why I don't think prohibition is helpful to non-users, either.

The truth that I've come to is that frankly I don't give a shit about addicts. Not in the sense that I don't care about them doing drugs, but in the sense that I don't care about their rights and their outcomes.

Drug users are by and large deadbeat losers who ugly up our society and leech disproportionately on every social welfare program, rarely turning their lives around to become net contributors to society, and almost completely invariably they will contribute far below the expected average.

Making drugs illegal, including cannabis, is about saying "we do not condone this in our community, in our city, in our state, in our nation". The penalties are there because without them the law is meaningless. Without the law there is no basis to infer that society does not condone the partaking of those drugs. You can make what inferences you like about alcohol but most alcoholics I've known were better contributors to society despite their addiction than most of the recreational pot smokers I ever knew, and I knew a lot. How they differ in terms of damage caused to the user is irrelevant to me. For whatever reason alcohol doesn't often seem to ruin societal workhorses while pot seems to create life long social parasites.

You don't have to give a shit about addicts to be against prohibition.

Firstly, to claim that all drug users are parasites who will never contribute to society is a broad generalization. There are people who tried drugs a few times and then stopped. There are people who only mess with drugs like weed and acid (i.e. not hard drugs) and only do it very once in a while. You also claim that all pot heads are unproductive leeches. There are too many pot smokers in the U.S. alone for you to make this generalization. You can't say that everyone who smokes pot is unproductive.

You can certainly say that most pot smokers are unproductive, and that most drug users are burdens on society, but that doesn't justify punishing and stripping the rights away from the ones who are not burdens on society, in my opinion.

Also, prohibition negatively affects people who don't use drugs, for the reasons I outlined earlier (increased risk of robbery by addicts, increased gang violence due to the black market).

You don't need to ban something and have harsh criminal penalties in order to show that society doesn't condone it. In the old days, society didn't condone premarital sex, but didn't feel the need to send people who engaged in it to prison for long sentences. The social stigma was enough to show people that society condemned it.

It is ridiculous to say that society is automatically condoning anything it doesn't ban and throw people in jail for doing. By that logic, society is condoning speeding and reckless driving (you only get a ticket for doing it, not a long jail sentence). Society is also condoning chain smoking, binge drinking, and adultery. By your logic, the only way for society to show it does not condone these activities is to explicitly ban them (with long jail sentences for any offenders) and to have cops busting people left and right who are suspected of these activities.

(01-11-2017 05:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I will never condone paedophilia, regardless of "consent" and how many studies tell me it's not really that bad, and that prohibition of it creates a black market where terrible things happen, and that locking up paedos will harm the paedo and the child more than allowing them to simply be together.

I no longer condone marijuana use, regardless of how many studies tell me it's not really that bad, and that prohibition of it creates a black market where terrible things happen, and that locking up pot-heads will harm the pot-heads more than allowing them to simply smoke pot.

It's not so much about the paedo or the pot head.

It's about the kind of culture I want to live in and the kind of civilisation I want to build for future generations.

You're equating pot heads to pedophiles? I can't even really take this argument seriously. Pedophiles are basically as bad as murderers, in the sense that they are destroying a life. Pot heads are simply smoking a substance that may or may not cause them to be less productive in life. You can't seriously be equating the two.

Banning pot causes a huge black market to spring up. Banning pedophilia does not. The black market for pot is thousands and thousands of times bigger than the black market for child prostitution. There are pot dealers in pretty much every high school in America. I don't remember there being child sex traffickers in my high school. Additionally, it would obviously not be worth it to legalize pedophila just to stamp out the black market for child prostitution (just as it would not be worth it to legalize murder just to put black market hitmen out of business). On the other hand, it would be well worth it to legalize pot, in my opinion, to put black market pot dealers out of business.

There is no comparison between weed and pedophilia. One is a victimless "crime" while the other is a terrible, violent crime which ruins the life of the victim.

Post: #310

(01-10-2017 07:38 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  whenever Nixon or Reagan used the term "war on drugs", it was a rhetorical frame in which the sacrifice of individual liberty seemed necessary, nor do they realize how this tears society apart.

Explain to me how this tears society apart. But before you do, read some relevant words from Theodore Dalrymple.

Theodore Dalrymple Wrote:In claiming that prohibition, not the drugs themselves, is the problem, Nadelmann and many others—even policemen—have said that “the war on drugs is lost.” But to demand a yes or no answer to the question “Is the war against drugs being won?” is like demanding a yes or no answer to the question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Never can an unimaginative and fundamentally stupid metaphor have exerted a more baleful effect upon proper thought.

Pay very close attention to the words bolded and highlighted in red.

Except that Marshall D. Teach never said anything about the war on drugs being "won" or "lost." Your response does not address any of his arguments.

Post: #311

(01-11-2017 12:09 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:38 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  whenever Nixon or Reagan used the term "war on drugs", it was a rhetorical frame in which the sacrifice of individual liberty seemed necessary, nor do they realize how this tears society apart.

Explain to me how this tears society apart. But before you do, read some relevant words from Theodore Dalrymple.

Theodore Dalrymple Wrote:In claiming that prohibition, not the drugs themselves, is the problem, Nadelmann and many others—even policemen—have said that “the war on drugs is lost.” But to demand a yes or no answer to the question “Is the war against drugs being won?” is like demanding a yes or no answer to the question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Never can an unimaginative and fundamentally stupid metaphor have exerted a more baleful effect upon proper thought.

Pay very close attention to the words bolded and highlighted in red.

Except that Marshall D. Teach never said anything about the war on drugs being "won" or "lost." Your response does not address any of his arguments.

Well, I thought he was a big boy and could answer for himself.

I led off with a request for an explanation from him. My use of the paragraph by Dalrymple was a rhetorical device, and the rhetoric is escaping you.

I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your implicit request for further explanation of my rhetoric.

In other words, you figure it out.

Post: #312

(01-10-2017 07:38 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  whenever Nixon or Reagan used the term "war on drugs", it was a rhetorical frame in which the sacrifice of individual liberty seemed necessary, nor do they realize how this tears society apart.

Explain to me how this tears society apart. But before you do, read some relevant words from Theodore Dalrymple.

Theodore Dalrymple Wrote:In claiming that prohibition, not the drugs themselves, is the problem, Nadelmann and many others—even policemen—have said that “the war on drugs is lost.” But to demand a yes or no answer to the question “Is the war against drugs being won?” is like demanding a yes or no answer to the question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Never can an unimaginative and fundamentally stupid metaphor have exerted a more baleful effect upon proper thought.

Pay very close attention to the words bolded and highlighted in red.

First question: who the fuck is Theodore Dalrymple and why should we give a fuck about what he has to say on global drug policies?

Just kidding.

Theodore Dalrymple's argument is extremely similar to how the Prison Guards' Union (which is the largest, strongest, political lobby group in most states in the US) continue to lobby to make sure that certain drugs stay illegal regardless of the facts surrounding the drug's safety, or the effects of its prohibition. What's worse in his case is, he only touches on drugs whose use makes less than 15% of the total number of people in the US who use any form of illicit substance whatsoever.

Although Theodore has the facts, and even seems to fully grasp it...

Quote:The argument is that the overwhelming majority of the harm done to society by the consumption of currently illicit drugs is caused not by their pharmacological properties but by their prohibition and the resultant criminal activity that prohibition always calls into being. Simple reflection tells us that a supply invariably grows up to meet a demand; and when the demand is widespread, suppression is useless. Indeed, it is harmful, since—by raising the price of the commodity in question—it raises the profits of middlemen, which gives them an even more powerful incentive to stimulate demand further. The vast profits to be made from cocaine and heroin—which, were it not for their illegality, would be cheap and easily affordable even by the poorest in affluent societies—exert a deeply corrupting effect on producers, distributors, consumers, and law enforcers alike. Besides, it is well known that illegality in itself has attractions for youth already inclined to disaffection. Even many of the harmful physical effects of illicit drugs stem from their illegal status: for example, fluctuations in the purity of heroin bought on the street are responsible for many of the deaths by overdose. If the sale and consumption of such drugs were legalized, consumers would know how much they were taking and thus avoid overdoses.

Moreover, since society already permits the use of some mind-altering substances known to be both addictive and harmful, such as alcohol and nicotine, in prohibiting others it appears hypocritical, arbitrary, and dictatorial. Its hypocrisy, as well as its patent failure to enforce its prohibitions successfully, leads inevitably to a decline in respect for the law as a whole. Thus things fall apart, and the center cannot hold.

It stands to reason, therefore, that all these problems would be resolved at a stroke if everyone were permitted to smoke, swallow, or inject anything he chose. The corruption of the police, the luring of children of 11 and 12 into illegal activities, the making of such vast sums of money by drug dealing that legitimate work seems pointless and silly by comparison, and the turf wars that make poor neighborhoods so exceedingly violent and dangerous, would all cease at once were drug taking to be decriminalized and the supply regulated in the same way as alcohol.

...but he does not address this at all, and in attempt to provide a workable solution to this canker, he suggests a hypothesis:

Quote:But a certain modesty in the face of an inherently unknowable future is surely advisable. That is why prudence is a political virtue: what stands to reason should happen does not necessarily happen in practice. As Goethe said, all theory (even of the monetarist or free-market variety) is gray, but green springs the golden tree of life. If drugs were legalized, I suspect that the golden tree of life might spring some unpleasant surprises.

This is a woefully inadequate defense of drug prohibition, but then again that is just my opinion.


But to address your bolded and highlighted words you might want to ask yourself: what is meant by the war on drugs? I wish I could meet up with Richard Nixon and ask him that myself. How can you have a war on a noun? Its a bit like again, "war on terror". Its a war on a concept. We humans are very motivated by war. We are extremely motivated a metaphor of violent confrontation. It goes all the way back to the very first foremothers of all life on earth - bacteria - 3.85 billion years ago. We humans, being the children of bacteria, are no different. You use the metaphor of war on just about anything and it gets us roused. But especially use it about our group versus another group, our subculture vs another subculture, our lifestyle vs another lifestyle, and you can really get us going. Its clear neurolinguistic programming. Because if you associate a war, you associate it with a nation having to pull together to fight a "baddy" out there. And so you look into any federal agency you want to and in their budget you'll see extra tens of millions of dollars being earmarked expressly to fight the "war on drugs" with nothing to show for it but the sacrifice of individual liberty.

Quote:Never can an unimaginative and fundamentally stupid metaphor have exerted a more baleful effect upon proper thought.

Spot on, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan must see this.

But this where is starts to get ridiculous:

Quote:Let us ask whether medicine is winning the war against death. The answer is obviously no, it isn’t winning: the one fundamental rule of human existence remains, unfortunately, one man one death. And this is despite the fact that 14 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States (to say nothing of the efforts of other countries) goes into the fight against death. Was ever a war more expensively lost? Let us then abolish medical schools, hospitals, and departments of public health. If every man has to die, it doesn’t matter very much when he does so.

And downright dangerous:

Quote:If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

First of all, the discipline of medicine doesn't exist to wage war against death. As a psychiatrist, who should have taken the Hippocratic Oath, he should know better. How do we even come up with these metaphors? Ironically, his argument justifies the deaths of innocent people (who might not even be drug users themselves) caught up in drug wars. Furthermore, lumping the personal use of a drug together with felonies is just lunatic - again that is just my opinion.

Post: #313

(01-12-2017 08:00 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  First question: who the fuck is Theodore Dalrymple and why should we give a fuck about what he has to say on global drug policies?

A former prison doctor and psychiatrist. And therefore speaks with at least two more relevant qualifications than Kofi Annan. Per his bio, Dalrymple also worked as a doctor on the very continent that Kofi wants more money for, which gives him direct experience of the drug and HIV problem there. Which therefore means you might just want to listen to him on drug policy generally.

In particular, it's kind of cute that you miss Dalrymple's diagnosis of the problem which is present even on a Wikipedia analysis of his work: the recurrent theme of his literature is that characterising drug policy as a medical issue is very largely exaggerated, that psychiatry is generally being used for purposes well outside its original function -- specifically, the dimunition of moral responsibility. Try reading his essay The Knife Went In which direct addresses it. And he's not alone in sounding the alarm that psychiatry is being misused: I suggest you go to the blog of The Last Psychiatrist and start reading.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #314

(01-11-2017 11:49 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...

(01-11-2017 05:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  ...
Drug users are by and large deadbeat losers who ugly up our society and leech ...

...
Firstly, to claim that all drug users are parasites who will never contribute to society is a broad generalization.
...

Sorry Rob, but either you're refusing to actually read what I post or you're deliberately poisoning the well of debate.

I'm not going to spend hours picking through walls of text correcting your misinterpretations of what I've written and then deciding whether to come up with counterpoints to your rebuttals of those misinterpretations.

And it's not just because that would be annoying.

No, you see I have had an epiphany of late. I realised that as a man, a father, a husband, a son, and a defender of my community, I don't need to spend my life perpetually defending the rights of filthy, bedraggled bong-water swilling degenerates.

I grew up around them and frankly they sicken me.

I don't want to see them. I don't want to suffer them. Sure as hell I don't want my own children falling afoul of their grotesque lifestyle and as such I remorselessly affirm the stance of the state in reducing them to persona non grata.

I shrug, mightily, and say "fuck them and everything they stand for, as they are the enemy of the common good and are not my people".

There it is. Call me a barbarian if you want. I simply don't care. I don't care about your theories on what might happen if drugs are decriminalised. I don't care how it played out in Whereveristan. I don't give a shit about studies done by progressive social scientists. More and more each day I find myself a kindred spirit with the likes of Deuterte. The black market is eminently solvable by means other than decriminalisation. Simply clear out the prisons of all drug dealers and hang them in town square.
While we waste our time trying to salvage the feckless, the deranged and the sociopathic we neglect the next generation by impressing upon them that there are no consequences for failure in life, only handouts and understanding.

And so it is, Banks. I don't give a fuck about drug users. You will find on me no libertarian principles to twist. No economic shackles to tug. No appeals to mercy or tolerance will find their mark.

I want them gone, and I give not a shit how it happens.

Post: #315

(01-12-2017 08:00 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  But to address your bolded and highlighted words you might want to ask yourself: what is meant by the war on drugs?

The better question to ask is, why did Theodore Dalrymple compare the use of this metaphor to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Since you are being pedantic and letting this brilliant rhetoric fly directly over your pretty little head, let me break it down for you sweety.

There is no "War on Drugs". If there is a "War on Drugs", then there is a "War on Crime" and a "War on Death" and these wars are also being lost. The phrase "War on Drugs" was just RHETORIC used by politicians to win elections and pass policies and legislation. You're taking it literally. You're being pedantic.

(09-07-2016 11:40 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  Pedantic
/pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective

Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. You don't want to go antique-shopping with a pedantic friend, who will use the opportunity to bore you with his in-depth knowledge of Chinese porcelain kitty-litter boxes.

(01-12-2017 08:00 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  First of all, the discipline of medicine doesn't exist to wage war against death.

Why thank you. Do you have any fine Chinese porcelain kitty-litter boxes for sale on eBay?

While you're checking your inventory, please enjoy this actual photo of Paracelsus responding to you in his last post:



(You're the horse getting pwned. The guy riding you is Kofi Annan.)

Post: #316

(01-12-2017 09:32 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 11:49 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...

(01-11-2017 05:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  ...
Drug users are by and large deadbeat losers who ugly up our society and leech ...

...
Firstly, to claim that all drug users are parasites who will never contribute to society is a broad generalization.
...

Sorry Rob, but either you're refusing to actually read what I post or you're deliberately poisoning the well of debate.

I'm not going to spend hours picking through walls of text correcting your misinterpretations of what I've written and then deciding whether to come up with counterpoints to the your rebuttals of those misinterpretations.

And it's not just because that would be annoying.

No, you see I have had an epiphany of late. I realised that as a man, a father, a husband, a son, and a defender of my community, I don't need to spend my life perpetually defending the rights of filthy, bedraggled bong-water swilling degenerates.

I grew up around them and frankly they sicken me.

I don't want to see them. I don't want to suffer them. Sure as hell I don't want my own children falling afoul of their grotesque lifestyle and as such I remorselessly affirm the stance of the state in reducing them to persona non grata.

I shrug, mightily, and say "fuck them and everything they stand for, as they are the enemy of the common good and are not my people".

There it is. Call me a barbarian if you want. I simply don't care. I don't care about your theories on what might happen if drugs are decriminalised. I don't care how it played out in Whereveristan. I don't give a shit about studies done by progressive social scientists. More and more each day I find myself a kindred spirit with the likes of Deuterte. The black market is eminently solvable by means other than decriminalisation. Simply clear out the prisons of all drug dealers and hang them in town square.
While we waste our time trying to salvage the feckless, the deranged and the sociopathic we neglect the next generation by impressing upon them that there are no consequences for failure in life, only handouts and understanding.

And so it is, Banks. I don't give a fuck about drug users. You will find on me no libertarian principles to twist. No economic shackles to tug. No appeals to mercy or tolerance will find their mark.

I want them gone, and I give not a shit how it happens.

I may have misread the line you quoted ("all drug users" vs. "drug users by and large"). You're right about that, and I apologize for misquoting you.

However, I have to say, you seem to be refusing to read what I actually post.

You go on and on about how terrible and useless drug users are, how they are a burden on society, and how little you give a shit about them. However, in my previous post, I specifically outlined the reasons why drug prohibition is harmful to society at large (including non-drug users).

Here is a quote of the relevant parts of my previous post:

(01-11-2017 11:49 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  You don't have to give a shit about addicts to be against prohibition.

Firstly, to claim that all drug users are parasites who will never contribute to society is a broad generalization. There are people who tried drugs a few times and then stopped. There are people who only mess with drugs like weed and acid (i.e. not hard drugs) and only do it very once in a while. You also claim that all pot heads are unproductive leeches. There are too many pot smokers in the U.S. alone for you to make this generalization. You can't say that everyone who smokes pot is unproductive.

You can certainly say that most pot smokers are unproductive, and that most drug users are burdens on society, but that doesn't justify punishing and stripping the rights away from the ones who are not burdens on society, in my opinion.

Also, prohibition negatively affects people who don't use drugs, for the reasons I outlined earlier (increased risk of robbery by addicts, increased gang violence due to the black market).

You don't need to ban something and have harsh criminal penalties in order to show that society doesn't condone it. In the old days, society didn't condone premarital sex, but didn't feel the need to send people who engaged in it to prison for long sentences. The social stigma was enough to show people that society condemned it.

It is ridiculous to say that society is automatically condoning anything it doesn't ban and throw people in jail for doing. By that logic, society is condoning speeding and reckless driving (you only get a ticket for doing it, not a long jail sentence). Society is also condoning chain smoking, binge drinking, and adultery. By your logic, the only way for society to show it does not condone these activities is to explicitly ban them (with long jail sentences for any offenders) and to have cops busting people left and right who are suspected of these activities.

(01-11-2017 05:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I will never condone paedophilia, regardless of "consent" and how many studies tell me it's not really that bad, and that prohibition of it creates a black market where terrible things happen, and that locking up paedos will harm the paedo and the child more than allowing them to simply be together.

I no longer condone marijuana use, regardless of how many studies tell me it's not really that bad, and that prohibition of it creates a black market where terrible things happen, and that locking up pot-heads will harm the pot-heads more than allowing them to simply smoke pot.

It's not so much about the paedo or the pot head.

It's about the kind of culture I want to live in and the kind of civilisation I want to build for future generations.

You're equating pot heads to pedophiles? I can't even really take this argument seriously. Pedophiles are basically as bad as murderers, in the sense that they are destroying a life. Pot heads are simply smoking a substance that may or may not cause them to be less productive in life. You can't seriously be equating the two.

Banning pot causes a huge black market to spring up. Banning pedophilia does not. The black market for pot is thousands and thousands of times bigger than the black market for child prostitution. There are pot dealers in pretty much every high school in America. I don't remember there being child sex traffickers in my high school. Additionally, it would obviously not be worth it to legalize pedophila just to stamp out the black market for child prostitution (just as it would not be worth it to legalize murder just to put black market hitmen out of business). On the other hand, it would be well worth it to legalize pot, in my opinion, to put black market pot dealers out of business.

There is no comparison between weed and pedophilia. One is a victimless "crime" while the other is a terrible, violent crime which ruins the life of the victim.

The bolded portions are my arguments as to why drug prohibition is bad even if you don't give a shit about drug users or addicts.

It's like if some guy walked up to me and said "the only reason you believe in traditional sexual morality is because of what the Bible says," and I respond by giving him all the reasons why I believe in traditional sexual morality WITHOUT MENTIONING THE BIBLE OR RELIGION (i.e. sluts make bad wives, the family unit is the bedrock of society, children do better when raised by both parents, married couples are far less likely to get divorced when the woman saves her virginity for marriage, homosexuality is unnatural, etc.), only to have the guy respond to me by saying "I'm not going to spend hours coming up with rebuttals to your arguments. I don't like religious, church-going Bible-thumpers telling me who I can and can't have sex with" and then listing all the reasons why he doesn't like religious people trying to enforce sexual morality.

In my previous post, I outlined many reasons why I believe drug prohibition is harmful to society at large, and why you should be in favor of legalization even if you don't give a shit about drug users, and you responded by telling me all the reasons you don't like drug users and don't give a shit about them.

I have already stated multiple times that I sympathize (although I may not agree) with people who say "fuck drug users. I don't give a shit about them. Let them rot in prison." At least you're being consistent in your arguments, unlike the liberals, who want to lock drug users up while claiming to be "helping" them.

I also said I have a certain amount of respect for what Duterte is doing in the Philippines. He is sending a clear and consistent message that drug use will not be tolerated, and he doesn't give a shit if this makes him popular around the world or not.

If you don't give a shit about drug users, I totally sympathize with that position. I don't think society owes drug users and addicts a damn thing. However, I still think drug prohibition is harmful to society at large, just like alcohol prohibition was harmful to society back in the 1920s and '30s.

If you don't want to rebut my arguments, that's fine, but don't misrepresent what I said by continuing to list all the reasons why drug users are the scum of the earth when I clearly provided multiple arguments against prohibition that don't take into account the well-being of users and addicts.

Post: #317

(11-03-2016 08:53 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 04:16 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  That's some circular logic right there. It makes absolutely no sense. Let's forget about all the many lives destroyed, people murdered, and communities torn apart as an indirect result of the war on drugs. Oh and lets not forget BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

It's elementary logic.

Those who want drugs to be illegal, want drugs to be illegal. Those who want drugs to be legal, want drugs to be legal.

On day one of the War on Drugs, drugs were illegal. So the Anti-Legalize people won the day. And from day one of the War On Drugs until today, drugs are still illegal. So the winning percentage of the Anti-Legalize side is 1.000.

I will, however, concede that the Pro-Legalize side has won some victories by making medical marijuana legal in certain states. But that's a far cry from what the pro-Legalize side wants.

So the winning percentage of the Anti-Legalize side is roughly 0.9999995.

(11-03-2016 08:57 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 05:26 PM)Enigma Wrote:  So you didn't say captain_shane had the moral development of a teenager, that people who smoke weed are little girls who wear diapers, and that your arguments are based on emotion?

I said all of those things, and I still believe in them.

I'm also silently glowing, because your engaging in this discussion is completely ineffective persuasionwise. And so I'm looking forward to yet another tomorrow when Pro-Legalize people don't get what they want, making them Losers For The Day.

How does it feel knowing that you're not going to get what you want, because your arguments aren't compelling enough to convince people? I'll bet it sucks. But not enough for you to change your tactics.

Feminism has also won. Over the last century, feminism has won almost every battle it has fought.

By your logic, feminism must be correct, and us anti-feminists must be wrong. After all, the winning percentage for feminism over the last century is roughly 0.9999995.

Let's ignore all the lives, families, and communities that have been destroyed due to feminism. The mere fact that feminists have won (and anti-feminists have lost) means that feminism must be right.

I guess anti-feminists have not gotten what they want because their arguments are not compelling enough to convince people. Us traditionalists and anti-feminists are just "losers" who are mad that we aren't getting what we want.

(11-04-2016 02:57 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:48 PM)Enigma Wrote:  And you've "persuaded" half the people in this thread that you're a massive douche.

That doesn't matter. The only goal of the Pro-Legalize crowd is to get drugs legalized. There are no substitute victories, like "accusing an Anti-Legalize person of being a douche", or "not being a douche while discussing the issue".

You either get drugs legalized, or you don't.

Quote:I already said I live in a country where drug dealers and users are shot in the street. But keep pretending that you're somehow triggering me because you disagree with my political opinion on a message board.

I'm not pretending I'm triggering you.

I'm pointing out that you're not achieving victory conditions.

I looked up when the War On Drugs started, and Google said 1971 with Nixon. If that's true, then regarding US Drug Policy, I haven't experienced a single day of loss in my entire life. Every day I've been alive, the drugs I don't want to be legal have never been legal.

So your experience may be different by living in the Philippines. But if you lived in the US, you and the people you agree with will have experienced literally zero days of victory, (unless they're older than 45). And 15,000 consecutive days of losing puts you in no position to look down on me.

The first major victory for feminism was the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920. Since then, feminists have not experienced a single day of loss (aside from very minor "losses" such as laws that prohibit third-trimester abortion).

Just because feminism has "won" and anti-feminism/traditionalism has "lost" doesn't mean that feminism is right and good for society.

I don't think anyone posting in this thread would doubt the fact that drug prohibitionists have "won" (i.e. succeeded in making drugs illegal with harsh penalties for anyone caught possessing and/or selling them). In fact, not only have the drug prohibitionists succeeded in making drugs illegal in the U.S., they have also succeeded in influencing foreign countries to enact harsher penalties for those caught with drugs.

Just because drug prohibition is the status quo doesn't mean it is the best policy.

Post: #318

(01-11-2017 05:15 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:33 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  ...What criminalization advocates never stop to consider is where all that revenue generated end up.

And there you have but one more thinly veiled insult that that basement dwelling gamma academics can't seem to help but weave into their appeals.

Of course! Criminalisation advocates are only so inclined because they are too stupid to take all of the factors into account!

"Only people on my side have a complete understanding of the issue. After all. What criminalization advocates never stop to consider is where all that revenue generated end up."

This is more of an observation, because much of your argument assumes that position, as do other advocates. You don't even try to be subliminal. One member even blatantly admitted he doesn't give a fuck.
And this is exactly the mindset that got us here in the first place. Look at the journey we've taken, 50 years of criminalisation. It came out on a whole idea that we don't have to care for each other anymore. Its every man for himself. We weren't always like that. But the question is can we go back? To caring about each other?
I do apologize for the condescending tone of that statement though, my intent wasn't to insult your intelligence.

Post: #319

(01-12-2017 08:18 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 08:00 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  First question: who the fuck is Theodore Dalrymple and why should we give a fuck about what he has to say on global drug policies?

A former prison doctor and psychiatrist. And therefore speaks with at least two more relevant qualifications than Kofi Annan. Per his bio, Dalrymple also worked as a doctor on the very continent that Kofi wants more money for, which gives him direct experience of the drug and HIV problem there. Which therefore means you might just want to listen to him on drug policy generally.

In particular, it's kind of cute that you miss Dalrymple's diagnosis of the problem which is present even on a Wikipedia analysis of his work: the recurrent theme of his literature is that characterising drug policy as a medical issue is very largely exaggerated, that psychiatry is generally being used for purposes well outside its original function -- specifically, the dimunition of moral responsibility. Try reading his essay The Knife Went In which direct addresses it. And he's not alone in sounding the alarm that psychiatry is being misused: I suggest you go to the blog of The Last Psychiatrist and start reading.

And that is exactly the problem here. His qualifications somehow makes him infallible? And I'm the one resorting to authority? Hmm?

Per your logic, by virtue of being the deputy director of The Office of the National Drug Control policy, Michael Botticelli should have been able to clearly answer when Blumenauer asked him: "is meth more dangerous than marijuana?"

It is essential to make decisions in public policy wherever possible based on the actual evidence that there is for something. Surely, you do agree to this I hope? How else are you going to make policy? Are you going to base it on some sort of faith? Conviction? Suspicions? (Theodore Dalrymple identifies with this one), Or a wish that something will happen just because you want it to? Stand and scream on the spot until you get your way like a small child? And that's effectively what most criminalisation advocates, and these politicians seem to be doing.

Post: #320

(01-11-2017 05:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:27 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Most criminalisation advocates here seem to be debating that drug users typically ugly up the place, leech off the system and sometimes become thieves, muggers and killers. The argument is that the liberties of those that don't offend are too high a price to pay for the suffering caused to others by the fate of those drug users who cannot control or legally support their addictions.

But where are the facts that support this argument? Where are the bodies? Where are the numbers?
...

Fact: I don't like pot-heads

Fact: I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.

Fact: The above two facts are facts.

Fact: The third fact is also factual in nature.

For a deep forum, don't you think opinions, borne out of your personal feelings towards another human being, shouldn't at least be at the forefront?

Post: #321

(01-11-2017 11:49 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  You don't have to give a shit about addicts to be against prohibition.

Seriously. You'd think for a deep forum you wouldn't need to point this out.

(01-11-2017 11:49 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...to claim that all drug users are parasites who will never contribute to society is a broad generalization. There are people who tried drugs a few times and then stopped. There are people who only mess with drugs like weed and acid (i.e. not hard drugs) and only do it very once in a while. You also claim that all pot heads are unproductive leeches. There are too many pot smokers in the U.S. alone for you to make this generalization. You can't say that everyone who smokes pot is unproductive.

You can certainly say that most pot smokers are unproductive, and that most drug users are burdens on society, but that doesn't justify punishing and stripping the rights away from the ones who are not burdens on society, in my opinion.

This stems from the prejudiced manner in which most people regard drug users. I've seen pot users who've gone through Medical school to become surgeons, physicians, endocrinologists well above their mark. And they still continue to use it. The last three presidents of the US, at least, confirmed that they in fact, did smoke marijuana. (Wait, shouldn't they be in jail? I mean, they've admitted it, right?)

Obama apparently really rather enjoyed it. I wonder what would have happenned if he did time in Federal prison. This is his quote: "I'm not going to be using Justice department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue." Well bullshit, that's exactly what he did. He launched the most vicious attack on medical marijuana patients and dispensaries that pales Bush by comparison. In a report issued on June 2013 it was found that the DEA had performed 270 medical marijuana raids under Barack Obama in his first four and half years of hid presidency. This was more that all 12 years combined before he took office. The Obama administration outspent the Bush administration by about 100 million dollars in about half the time. People actually get freaked out when you mention this. He had a choice, he could have done as his campaign promised and said, "hey, you know what? We're not gonna hit the dispensary raids anymore. If you have made medicinal marijuana legal in your state, we're gonna respect that. Its not even a good use of our resources" That's what he said in his campaign. But what does he do when he goes to act? He puts the most right-winger that they had in the DEA - Michele M. Leonhart - who was left over from the Bush years, as the head. Now why would you have to do that? You could have picked ANYBODY. Why? Well that's mainly because he's a politician, like the rest of them, and he thinks "if I can curry a little bit of favour by putting this person in, well, I would seem so moderate and that will increase my chance in winning in 2012 by maybe half a percent." When he was addressing a question that ranked fairly high on an online poll, which was about whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation, he goes like "but uh, I don't know what it says about the online audience" And then he chuckles, the crowd laughs. Well what it says about the online audience is that they like pot. Why don't you explain to me what's wrong with the idea that people want you to make it so that someone doesn't get locked up in a cage for a forbidden plant? "Yeah I did it, I got away with it. Too bad you're not. Now move on to the next question".

George W. Bush , who pretty much has acknowledged while he was young and irresponsible and a playboy, he used cocaine. And then when he was governor of Texas he signed legislation mandating anyone that uses cocaine must go to jail a minimum of 180 days.

That is beyond hypocrisy.

When asked about pot, they typically say: "I don't want to answer the question on marijuana, you know why? I don't want young kids doing what I did." But if you really don't want kids doing what you did, you truly believe their incarceration is the most prudent path?

Likewise I mean when you look at the interviews that have been done with Bill Clinton AFTER he left office, he openly admitted that he thinks that marijuana should be decriminalized. And then you're like oh, well, if only you were in a position to do something about it, hmm.

I wouldn't pretend that I know what pulls a president's strings, but I do know there is a stark contrast between the way every President behaves before when they got into office and the once they got into office. The general public should hold politicians accountable for saying one thing when they're not in power and doing another when they come into power. That's fraud, an even more serious crime than rolling a blunt and relaxing with it in your room (you're even unable to relax properly because you have to be wary of the DEA busting in).

There's a sort of rhetorical trick they quite often use: 'oh this something I did in the past, its something I regret, I wouldn't advise anyone else to use it" So they somehow distance themselves from their own person. And the public puts up with that hypocrisy. People get it when you point it out, but I don't know why they put up with it. So it may be said that President X or Y has smoked cannabis at one point in their lives or used other illegal drugs, but when they get to the top they are going to oppress others for using illegal drugs. Like I said earlier, that's not an idea that would crossed the minds of any of the founding fathers when they set out to create this country.

Post: #322

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 08:18 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 08:00 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  First question: who the fuck is Theodore Dalrymple and why should we give a fuck about what he has to say on global drug policies?

A former prison doctor and psychiatrist. And therefore speaks with at least two more relevant qualifications than Kofi Annan. Per his bio, Dalrymple also worked as a doctor on the very continent that Kofi wants more money for, which gives him direct experience of the drug and HIV problem there. Which therefore means you might just want to listen to him on drug policy generally.

In particular, it's kind of cute that you miss Dalrymple's diagnosis of the problem which is present even on a Wikipedia analysis of his work: the recurrent theme of his literature is that characterising drug policy as a medical issue is very largely exaggerated, that psychiatry is generally being used for purposes well outside its original function -- specifically, the dimunition of moral responsibility. Try reading his essay The Knife Went In which direct addresses it. And he's not alone in sounding the alarm that psychiatry is being misused: I suggest you go to the blog of The Last Psychiatrist and start reading.

And that is exactly the problem here. His qualifications somehow makes him infallible? And I'm the one resorting to authority? Hmm?

(1) No, they don't. But then that's you advancing a straw man: I didn't say he was infallible. Do try and avoid the rhetorical flourishes, dear.
(2) Yes, you are. As evidenced by the fact you still won't answer why you brought Kofi Annan ™'s name into it.

Quote:Per your logic, by virtue of being the deputy director of The Office of the National Drug Control policy, Michael Botticelli should have been able to clearly answer when Blumenauer asked him: "is meth more dangerous than marijuana?"

I suggest rather than cherry-pick statements out of context you provide the whole transcript of the occasion in which he said it. Until you do that, you're doing the equivalent of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Quote:It is essential to make decisions in public policy wherever possible based on the actual evidence that there is for something.

Pity you haven't provided anything verifiable by reference to actual papers, meetings, transcripts, etc, at this point. If putting up Kofi Annan's rhetoric is the extent of your evidence provision, I don't hold out a lot of hope it's going to get much better than this.

And it also ignores a significant point. Some shit simply should not be legalised on a moral basis. Kofi the Magical Negro ™ falls into the same hole in argument when he whines that you can't stop drug use, so you should just legalise it. As I said in the article which you professed to read before flouncing: replace the word "drug use" with "paedophilia" and you see how vapid the nature of that argument is.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #323

Okay, lets slay this nonsense on a point by point basis.

Decriminalisation: "Drug users will not be reduced to committing crimes to pay excessively for drugs since the cost will come down.

Reality: All drugs harder than pot too frequently create psychotics and cripples that taxpayers have to support in their infirmity, so a price drop there is of no benefit. Meanwhile the price of pot is irrelevantly low. I've never known a pot addict who had to steal to get pot, but I've known many pot addicts who stole because they were simply self centred assholes with no respect for the idea of living in a civilisation. If I could find a correlation between how normal people tied their shoelaces differently from those people then I would make it illegal to tie your shoelaces in a criminally oriented manner.

It's less about punishing pot smokers for smoking pot and more about creating filters for the kind of people you want to around you.

Fuck the rest. They can rot in jail, where they would likely end up anyway.

p.s. What I don't see or have to deal with is not my problem either as a first responder, taxpayer or victim. So if some random med student or Nobel peace prize winner smokes a bit of pot or does a line of coke in his spare time then I don't care, and frankly neither does the government. On the off chance they get caught with less than dealer quantities they will get a slap on the wrist. Boo hoo.

But the idea that drugs should be legal because some people use them responsibly is flawed. I might as well claim that there should be no speed limits because some people have advanced driver training. If some guy with a Ferrari wants to go out to a stretch of desert road and do 180 who gives a fuck? That doesn't mean I want to make it legal for some loser with no insurance to run his hoopdy around a school zone at 80.

Post: #324

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  His qualifications somehow makes him infallible?

No, they don't.

Which means he could be wrong. If only his name and qualifications weren't pushing you onto your blindside...

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  And I'm the one resorting to authority?

Yes, you are. As evidenced by the fact you still won't answer why you brought Kofi Annan ™'s name into it.

Like I said earlier, Kofi Annan's name had no bearing on how I viewed his essay. I don't have to like or dislike him to be able to objectively analyze his argument. He may not have the same qualifications as Theodore Dalrymple, or even the experience, but does that mean that makes his views on the subject matter wrong, and Theodore right, by default?

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  It is essential to make decisions in public policy wherever possible based on the actual evidence that there is for something.

Pity you haven't provided anything verifiable by reference to actual papers, meetings, transcripts, etc, at this point.

Theodore Dalrymple states all the evidence I've come up with so far in my posts in his argument, and they are all verifiable. Since you want suck on his qualification teat so bad, I suggest you read his writings with a bit more scrutiny.

Post: #325

(01-13-2017 12:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Okay, lets slay this nonsense on a point by point basis.

Let's slay the nonsense in your post on a point by point basis:

(01-13-2017 12:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Decriminalisation: "Drug users will not be reduced to committing crimes to pay excessively for drugs since the cost will come down.

Reality: All drugs harder than pot too frequently create psychotics and cripples that taxpayers have to support in their infirmity, so a price drop there is of no benefit. Meanwhile the price of pot is irrelevantly low. I've never known a pot addict who had to steal to get pot, but I've known many pot addicts who stole because they were simply self centred assholes with no respect for the idea of living in a civilisation. If I could find a correlation between how normal people tied their shoelaces differently from those people then I would make it illegal to tie your shoelaces in a criminally oriented manner.

You're totally missing the point.

There will always be drug users (and non-drug users, for that matter) who commit crimes because they are "self-centered assholes with no respect for the idea of living in civilization." Even if we accept the premise that drug users are more likely to commit crimes, prohibition does nothing to change this. You're assuming that drug prohibition greatly reduces the number of people who use drugs, and therefore reduces the amount of crime.

I'll concede that prohibition reduces the amount of people who use drugs (although not by a whole lot). However, the people who choose not to use drugs because of their illegality are most likely going to be law-abiding citizens. Those who are "self-centered assholes with no respect for the idea of living in civilization" are not going to stop using drugs just because they are illegal.

My point was that if drugs were legal, the costs would come way, way down, and drug addicts would no longer need to rob and steal to support their habits. Some of these drug addicts might still rob and steal simply because they are sociopaths with no respect for the law, but they are going to do so regardless of whether or not drugs are legal.

I highly doubt that if drugs were legalized tomorrow, otherwise law-abiding citizens would start doing drugs, become sociopaths overnight, and begin robbing, stealing, and committing crimes just for the hell of it.

(01-13-2017 12:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  It's less about punishing pot smokers for smoking pot and more about creating filters for the kind of people you want to around you.

If we started throwing everyone we considered to be "undesirable" in jail, the prisons would be overcrowded (more so than they already are) and we would cease to be a free country.

(01-13-2017 12:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Fuck the rest. They can rot in jail, where they would likely end up anyway.

We don't throw people in jail for crimes they might commit in the future.

By that logic, we should lock up every boy who was raised by a poor single mother as soon as he turns 18. Statistically, Young men who were raised by poor single mothers are far more likely to commit crimes. Why not just lock them all up in jail, where they would likely end up anyway?

(01-13-2017 12:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  p.s. What I don't see or have to deal with is not my problem either as a first responder, taxpayer or victim. So if some random med student or Nobel peace prize winner smokes a bit of pot or does a line of coke in his spare time then I don't care, and frankly neither does the government. On the off chance they get caught with less than dealer quantities they will get a slap on the wrist. Boo hoo.

If you don't care about some med student smoking a joint or snorting coke, then why are you advocating throwing them in jail?

The government definitely does care. If the government catches said med student snorting a line of coke, they will be thrown in jail. And no, they will not get a "slap on the wrist." In most states, getting caught with any amount of cocaine (or any other drug besides pot) is a felony.

[quote='Leonard D Neubache' pid='1484508' dateline='1484284491']
But the idea that drugs should be legal because some people use them responsibly is flawed. I might as well claim that there should be no speed limits because some people have advanced driver training. If some guy with a Ferrari wants to go out to a stretch of desert road and do 180 who gives a fuck? That doesn't mean I want to make it legal for some loser with no insurance to run his hoopdy around a school zone at 80.

By this logic, we should throw anyone caught speeding in jail and charge them with a felony.

Also, the reason speeding and reckless driving are illegal is because you can literally kill innocent people if you get into an accident. If you use drugs, you are not putting anyone's life in danger besides your own.