Starve you wife if she refuses sex

[Ironslave]

i guess ur referring to the freedom comment?

cuz i dont think he's that far off on that one.

Who would have ever thought that one member, Bulkboy, would ever support the idea of there being too much freedom

did too much freedom to do whatever they want in the financial markets contribute to the economic crisis? id say it did. had it been more properly regulated, we may have had a different outcome. freedom to do whatever u want is not always the all overshadowing most important thing imo.

and i know im prolly in for an all out assault on me from the libertarians on this board xD

Get this through your thick skull, I'm going to say it one more time. It's fine to debate things in theory, but you cannot debate what happened in FACT. This is FACT.

There WAS NOT too much freedom in the financial markets. Get this delusional fairy tale that the "market ran wild" out of your head, because that was NOT the case. None of this shit would have EVER happened if the government didn't get involved and REGULATE the sector, encourage sub prime loans be handed out to "get people into homes".... THEN, they turned their back and IGNORED fraud, so GOVERNMENT DIDN'T DO THEIR JOB.... and FINALLY when the ponzi scheme crashed, they bailed out their buddies on Wall Street to the tune on BILLIONS.

I've never seen anybody turn a blind eye to FACT in my life in favor of delusional fairy tales by a bunch of whining cry babies as dogmatically as you.

 

[Tech]

Bulkboy seems to think that the US government is always trustworthy and knows what's best for the country.

Unfortunately, when you look back through the history of the United States, the federal government doesn't have the best track record.

 

[MrChewiebitums]

Bulkboy seems to think that the US government is always trustworthy and knows what's best for the country.

Unfortunately, when you look back through the history of the United States, the federal government doesn't have the best track record.

i think its better if you saying US Gov. Ltd

 

[Line]

i guess ur referring to the freedom comment?

Saying there wasn't anything wrong with the law wasn't a good start.

 

[Bulkboy]

Who would have ever thought that one member, Bulkboy, would ever support the idea of there being too much freedom

oh spare me. i said a case could be made for there being too much freedom in one particular branch. the financial market. and it almost sound like ur trying to paint me as a totalitarian again. freedom is not the all overshadowing beacon anyway. it depends on what type of freedom we are talking about. i want freedom in the sense that people arent tossed out into mass unemployment and poverty. and if that means, reducing the freedom of one particular branch then so be it. its for the greater good of society. ur philosophy bases everything on negative rights, the right for people not to get interfered with. i believe postive rights are just as important. the right to have a somewhat of a decent life, the right to get healthcare if u get sick and the right to education. there are more than one way to look at freedom. and u libertarians arent the be all and end all in that regard. im entitled to my own perception of freedom. to me, a cold society, with massive unemployment and poverty, isnt really a free society. freedom isnt just about u doing whatever u want, when that means everyone else has to suffer for it.

freedom to me is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a decent life. to u freedom is being able to do the drugs u want, buy all the guns u want, and not pay any taxes.

im all honest, im really not all hung up in that type of freedom.

Get this through your thick skull, I'm going to say it one more time. It's fine to debate things in theory, but you cannot debate what happened in FACT. This is FACT.

There WAS NOT too much freedom in the financial markets. Get this delusional fairy tale that the "market ran wild" out of your head, because that was NOT the case. None of this shit would have EVER happened if the government didn't get involved and REGULATE the sector, encourage sub prime loans be handed out to "get people into homes".... THEN, they turned their back and IGNORED fraud, so GOVERNMENT DIDN'T DO THEIR JOB.... and FINALLY when the ponzi scheme crashed, they bailed out their buddies on Wall Street to the tune on BILLIONS.

I've never seen anybody turn a blind eye to FACT in my life in favor of delusional fairy tales by a bunch of whining cry babies as dogmatically as you.

wait what? first ure making the case that there was not enough freedom in the market. then u procede to say that none of this would have happened if the government didnt regulate the sector. but thats exactly what they DIDNT DO!! they deregulated the financial sector, which is exactly my point. they allowed too much freedom in the financial markets. which is what caused this crisis. further on u say they then turned their back on fraud? now thats another example of DEREGULATION and lack of oversight wouldnt u say? now ure basically arguing more government oversight and control urself. because with a free market this is what u get mate. more fraud, more corruption, and less ability to do anything about it. look back at the 30's during the great depression. your laizzes faire ideology was what dominated back then, and its the ideology that once again got to dominate during the bush administration. if an almost completely unregulated financial sector delievers these kind of results, then imagine what a completely deregulated financial sector delivers.

sure, government had its role in all of this. ive never said anything else, artifically low interest rates and the desire to let people own their own home is one thing. but most of all, government is to blame for not regulating good enough. what kind of approach is every recession stricken country in the world following today? ur approach? i think not.because market failures is a very real thing. and if government doesent step in, it provides serious long term damage to the economy.

Alan Greenspan, one of the main architects behind this whole deregulation process, himself, admitted that he had found a major flaw in the market, when it allowed for this to happend. now that speaks volumes, coming from a man like him. but still, even when coming from that level, u continue to place all ur trust in this outdated austrian pseudo economics bullshit, that has and never will work. what proof do u have of this approach being superior? zero, nada, nothing. the countries where it has to some extent been tested. countries like haiti, chile, post commie russia it has been an absolute disaster each and every time.

 

[Ironslave]

freedom to me is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a decent life. to u freedom is being able to do the drugs u want, buy all the guns u want, and not pay any taxes.

im all honest, im really not all hung up in that type of freedom.

Spare me and everyone else your nonsense strawman arguments. Yes, I want to go out and buy all the guns and drugs I want and never pay taxes and live in complete anarchy

Deregulation?

I'm not gonna respond to the rest, but I will respond to this.

ountries like haiti, chile, post commie russia it has been an absolute disaster each and every time.

Funny you say that. I'm STILL waiting for you to respond to me here, when I destroyed your fairy tale nonsense in this thread. I've never met ANYBODY so oblivious to reasons, where your arguments are refuted, yet you keep making them, it's unbelievable. I DARE you to respond to it.

 

[pegasus]

I don't think you embedded the video properly IS.

 

[Ryeland]

i guess ur referring to the freedom comment?

cuz i dont think he's that far off on that one. depends what kind of freedom we are talking about here. did too much freedom to do whatever they want in the financial markets contribute to the economic crisis? id say it did. had it been more properly regulated, we may have had a different outcome. freedom to do whatever u want is not always the all overshadowing most important thing imo.

and i know im prolly in for an all out assault on me from the libertarians on this board xD

There is no such thing as too much freedom. What the problem is, is a lack of appropriate consequences. Who has the right to tell you what you can and can't do? Who gets to choose these things? Why do they get to choose? These are the flaws with what you are saying.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating and anarchy where we are completely free to disregard public safety and well being. I am saying that it is not the Government's job, or their right to restrict my freedoms. The government (as a body of our peers, not some distant entity) has a responsibility to make sure that the will of the people who make up that country is upheld. Such that if i choose to murder someone, or cause unjust harm to another i get my comeuppance so to speak. The chief role of the government is to find a way to protect all the rights and freedoms that the people of country so desire, not curtail them.

No freedom should be restricted to a person unless that freedom may harm another, or hamper their rights and freedoms. To summarize, the role of the Government is to ensure that all the freedoms that I can have without causing detriment to another are protected. This is why we have governments.

 

[Bulkboy]

There is no such thing as too much freedom. What the problem is, is a lack of appropriate consequences. Who has the right to tell you what you can and can't do? Who gets to choose these things? Why do they get to choose? These are the flaws with what you are saying.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating and anarchy where we are completely free to disregard public safety and well being. I am saying that it is not the Government's job, or their right to restrict my freedoms. The government (as a body of our peers, not some distant entity) has a responsibility to make sure that the will of the people who make up that country is upheld. Such that if i choose to murder someone, or cause unjust harm to another i get my comeuppance so to speak. The chief role of the government is to find a way to protect all the rights and freedoms that the people of country so desire, not curtail them.

No freedom should be restricted to a person unless that freedom may harm another, or hamper their rights and freedoms. To summarize, the role of the Government is to ensure that all the freedoms that I can have without causing detriment to another are protected. This is why we have governments.

judging from ur former posts, ur kind of contradicting urself though. now ur taking the libertarian standpoint. that the government has no right to restrict anyones freedom. thats fine by itself.

in earlier threads though, u have defended government funded healthcare. how can u say what u just did in ur post (that the government has no right to tell us what and what not to do and restrict our freedom) and at the same time support government healthcare? because from a libertarian standpoint government healthcare is unacceptable. this because government funded healthcare means that i loose my freedom. i get taxed higher to pay for someone elses health issues. this means i loose some of my freedom right? the same goes for alot of other issues as well, like public education, roads etc etc.

my point is, that going by what u said in ur post, there really isnt alot of things the government is allowed to do. because each and everytime the government tax you, to pay for my or someone elses services they are effectively infringing on ur property rights and thereby ur freedom. according to libertarianism. this is not my view, i believe the government has the right to restrict someones freedom for the greater good of society(ie the financial sector). because i believe if a small group of people get too much freedom, i and alot of others will loose alot of our freedom. also i dont think freedom can be exclusively reduced to doing whatever u want.

an example, if im allowed to do whatever drugs i want, then in my hunt for the next shot of heroin, i break into ur house and kill you. i have effectively reduced ur freedom. my freedom increased and ur decreased. thats one of the reasons why i dont think drugs should be made legal. because i think of the greater good of society as more important than the right of some individuals to do whatever they want.

 

[Tech]

an example, if im allowed to do whatever drugs i want, then in my hunt for the next shot of heroin, i break into ur house and kill you. i have effectively reduced ur freedom.

we are talking about legalizing drugs, not legalizing theft and murder. why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Bulkboy]

we are talking about legalizing drugs, not legalizing theft and murder. why is that so difficult to understand?

i know that tech. the societal consequenses is still an issue though. i believe if drugs like metaamphetamine and heroin were legal the overall freedom and well being of the law abiding population would decrease, because of more thefts, more murders and social problems.

 

[Ryeland]

judging from ur former posts, ur kind of contradicting urself though. now ur taking the libertarian standpoint. that the government has no right to restrict anyones freedom. thats fine by itself.

in earlier threads though, u have defended government funded healthcare. how can u say what u just did in ur post (that the government has no right to tell us what and what not to do and restrict our freedom) and at the same time support government healthcare? because from a libertarian standpoint government healthcare is unacceptable. this because government funded healthcare means that i loose my freedom. i get taxed higher to pay for someone elses health issues. this means i loose some of my freedom right? the same goes for alot of other issues as well, like public education, roads etc etc.

my point is, that going by what u said in ur post, there really isnt alot of things the government is allowed to do. because each and everytime the government tax you, to pay for my or someone elses services they are effectively infringing on ur property rights and thereby ur freedom. according to libertarianism. this is not my view, i believe the government has the right to restrict someones freedom for the greater good of society(ie the financial sector). because i believe if a small group of people get too much freedom, i and alot of others will loose alot of our freedom. also i dont think freedom can be exclusively reduced to doing whatever u want.

an example, if im allowed to do whatever drugs i want, then in my hunt for the next shot of heroin, i break into ur house and kill you. i have effectively reduced ur freedom. my freedom increased and ur decreased. thats one of the reasons why i dont think drugs should be made legal. because i think of the greater good of society as more important than the right of some individuals to do whatever they want.

First of all, I am not Libertarian, nor am I contradicting myself. Second, I support public health. Third none of what I said restricts or contradicts that.

My previous post indicated that the government (as a group of our peers) has the task of balancing everyone's freedoms. For example, here in Canada, the government (and most of the population) believes that everyone's freedom to have good healthcare is more important than my individual right to pay lower taxes. In this case the goal of the government is not to restrict my freedom to pay lower taxes (though that is the result), the goal is to ensure that everyone has their right to healthcare.

Your examples of freedoms in the financial sector certainly speak to me, but getting rid of freedom will not solve this problem. Properly punishing people who intentionally mislead others in financial matters is a more effective method. I am not advocating freedom to lie or murder or steal. I am advocating responsibility for actions. One could argue that the US wholly deserves this economic meltdown, due to poor financial choices by citizens, corporations and governments alike. Allowing the government to control the financial sector will not eliminate this problem.

What I am saying is the goal of a Government should never be to restrict a freedom (even if that is a result) but it should be to balance freedoms, as the citizens of that country see fit. The Government is a group of people we choose to empower.

An individuals freedom to do drugs is a different story. Your hypothetical heroin rampage is a plausible situation. However whether or not the government allows you to kill me can't actually stop you from killing me, unless i have a police escort all the time. The act of me doing heroin alone is not much of threat to anyone, the drug seeking behavior is. You cannot cure the symptoms and expect to cure the disease.

Listen, I am by no means a Libertarian, and I support a great many social causes and programs. But the government is just a group of people. They make mistakes, and have their own agendas. Would you rely on me to tell you what you can and can't do? Hopefully not, even though I may have good intentions, I am not you. I cannot hope to fathom what is the best path for your life, the best way for you to achieve your goals. The role of the government is to attempt to create an environment that best allows you to achieve your goals in whatever way you see fit. Thats what democracy is, a group of individuals working together to make the best of the space we share.

 

[Line]

i believe if drugs like metaamphetamine and heroin were legal the overall freedom and well being of the law abiding population would decrease, because of more thefts, more murders and social problems.

This is based on...?

 

[Tech]

i know that tech. the societal consequenses is still an issue though. i believe if drugs like metaamphetamine and heroin were legal the overall freedom and well being of the law abiding population would decrease, because of more thefts, more murders and social problems.

fair enough.

but think of it like this.....police spend most of their time nowadays arresting and imprisoning drug dealers and drug users. imagine if they didn't have to do that. they'd have more time to spend on investigating real crimes like robberies, murders, rapes, etc.

also, there would be more room in prisons. (about 50% more room) that means we could give longer sentences to violent criminals like murders, rapists, robbers, etc.

also, there would be less gang related crime. when we take away their drugs, they won't have anything to sell or fight over.

 

[Ironslave]

i know that tech. the societal consequenses is still an issue though. i believe if drugs like methamphetamine and heroin were legal the overall freedom and well being of the law abiding population would decrease, because of more thefts, more murders and social problems.

Yet, you CONTINUE to flat out IGNORE historical examples which refute this, and continue to spout off with this nonsense. You realize that Bayer used to sell heroin, and you could even buy morphine at Sears??

What happened when heroin was legal?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4647018.stm

But in mid-1950s Britain, the spectre of drug addiction was a long way from the top of the public's concerns.

In fact, as the Times editorial states, in 1955 there were only 317 addicts to "manufactured" drugs in the whole of Britain, of which just 15% were dependent on heroin. That's a national total of 47.5 heroin addicts. History, regrettably, does not record the precise circumstances of the half-addict.

Oh noes!! One of the 47.5 heroin addicts in all of Britain are going to come and murder my family11!!1 ahhhhh


By contrast, in the US, where heroin was outlawed in 1925, it was said to be a "major social problem".

But who were this handful of heroin addicts?

According to Dr James Mills, a historian who has traced drug use through the 20th century, they tended to be doctors or middle-class patients who could afford to sustain a habit.

"In the 1930s, it was really the well-to-do crowd. The working classes might have a bit of heroin in the medicine prescribed to them but it wouldn't be enough to form a dependency," says Dr Mills.

Clearly, the fact heroin was legal and widely prescribed for common ailments such as coughs, colds and diarrhoea, as well as a pain killer, had not led to the sort of widespread dependency that opponents of legalisation fear it would do if legalised today.


Ha, put that in your syringe and shoot it.

 

[Bulkboy]

First of all, I am not Libertarian, nor am I contradicting myself. Second, I support public health. Third none of what I said restricts or contradicts that.

My previous post indicated that the government (as a group of our peers) has the task of balancing everyone's freedoms. For example, here in Canada, the government (and most of the population) believes that everyone's freedom to have good healthcare is more important than my individual right to pay lower taxes. In this case the goal of the government is not to restrict my freedom to pay lower taxes (though that is the result), the goal is to ensure that everyone has their right to healthcare.

Your examples of freedoms in the financial sector certainly speak to me, but getting rid of freedom will not solve this problem. Properly punishing people who intentionally mislead others in financial matters is a more effective method. I am not advocating freedom to lie or murder or steal. I am advocating responsibility for actions. One could argue that the US wholly deserves this economic meltdown, due to poor financial choices by citizens, corporations and governments alike. Allowing the government to control the financial sector will not eliminate this problem.

What I am saying is the goal of a Government should never be to restrict a freedom (even if that is a result) but it should be to balance freedoms, as the citizens of that country see fit. The Government is a group of people we choose to empower.

An individuals freedom to do drugs is a different story. Your hypothetical heroin rampage is a plausible situation. However whether or not the government allows you to kill me can't actually stop you from killing me, unless i have a police escort all the time. The act of me doing heroin alone is not much of threat to anyone, the drug seeking behavior is. You cannot cure the symptoms and expect to cure the disease.

Listen, I am by no means a Libertarian, and I support a great many social causes and programs. But the government is just a group of people. They make mistakes, and have their own agendas. Would you rely on me to tell you what you can and can't do? Hopefully not, even though I may have good intentions, I am not you. I cannot hope to fathom what is the best path for your life, the best way for you to achieve your goals. The role of the government is to attempt to create an environment that best allows you to achieve your goals in whatever way you see fit. Thats what democracy is, a group of individuals working together to make the best of the space we share.

good post, and i agree with alot of what u say here. i think we have kinda misunderstood eachother. in the first post u said his statement of there being too much freedom in the US was the dumbest most unfounded statement u had ever heard. but still, u rally around the canadian system, which certainly delivers less of the kind of freedom seen in the US(but perhaps just as much overall freedom). that is what i reacted to initially. if u want more regulation of the financial sector in order to prevent the economy from getting into this mess again, then u are in favor of less freedom for a certain branch and a certain type of people. i do agree though, that limiting freedom for the financial markets isnt the goal in itself, its a natural consequense of trying to improve society as a whole in this case.

as for the drug case. ur right about u doing heroin alone isnt a threat to anyone. but how u react to the drug may be a problem. my point is, that when i take that shot of heroin, and it causes me to go on a rampage, then it is a problem for everyone else, myself included. so by not allowing me to do heroin, the government ensures other peoples freedom is protected. that is a sacrifice of a certain type of freedom i am willing to make, in order to ensure greater overall freedom. offc, theres no guarantee that i wont kill you whether or not the government stops me from doing heroine, but the likeliness of me killing u is smaller, if im not on heroine.

its just like ur example of healthcare, where u said the population of canada have decided that everyones right to get healthcare is more important than my individual right to pay lower taxes. only in this case the population along with the government have decided that everyones right to live a more secure and healthy life is more important than my individual right to do drugs.

 

[Ironslave]

as for the drug case. ur right about u doing heroin alone isnt a threat to anyone. but how u react to the drug may be a problem. my point is, that when i take that shot of heroin, and it causes me to go on a rampage, then it is a problem for everyone else, myself included. so by not allowing me to do heroin, the government ensures other peoples freedom is protected. that is a sacrifice of a certain type of freedom i am willing to make, in order to ensure greater overall freedom. offc, theres no guarantee that i wont kill you whether or not the government stops me from doing heroine, but the likeliness of me killing u is smaller, if im not on heroine.

Once again:

In fact, as the Times editorial states, in 1955 there were only 317 addicts to "manufactured" drugs in the whole of Britain, of which just 15% were dependent on heroin. That's a national total of 47.5 heroin addicts. History, regrettably, does not record the precise circumstances of the half-addict.

Oh noes!! One of the 47.5 heroin addicts in all of Britain are going to come and murder my family11!!1 ahhhhh

Keep ignoring facts Bulkboy in favor of your prima donna rhetoric..... You are officially a lost cause.

 

[Bulkboy]

IS: u have shown to this example before and it isnt very relevant. its based on 1950 statistics. and it doesent take into consideration alot of factors. like other drugs popularity at that point in time. peoples private economy, the populations overall awareness of drugs etc etc.

u really think if we decided to make heoin legal, that consumption would decrease or even stay stagnant? are u seriously that naive? look at alchohol, look at sigarettes. u can not just show to this one article and assume its applicable for todays society. if u legalize drugs, u reduce the social stigma that exists towards it, and that will increase consumption. i dont understand how u can actually denie this. heroine is incredibly addictive, and its extremely hard for users to get off. a guy i know used heroin for several years, at the most he was on 7 shots a day and he has talked about it to me. he would literally do ANYTHING to get his hands on the next shot. that included robberies, beating up people(he operated as a torpedo for several years). why would u want more of this in a society? there is no doubt in my mind, that if u make it over the counter available, alot of people who otherwise wouldnt consider trying it, will try it. and there is a chance that alot of these people get addicted and thereby starts infringing on other peoples freedoms. that for me is enough to want to limit this certain freedom in order to provide a safer society.

an example. where in the western world is guns most available? Now where in the western world does most gun murders occur?

im gonna give u and tech this. i see ur point when it comes to criminals loosing their ability to profit on drugs. however i dont think it will effectively compensate for the negative consequenses following an increase in consumption from legalizing it.

 

[Tech]

IS: u have shown to this example before and it isnt very relevant. its based on 1950 statistics. and it doesent take into consideration alot of factors. like other drugs popularity at that point in time. peoples private economy, the populations overall awareness of drugs etc etc.

u really think if we decided to make heoin legal, that consumption would decrease or even stay stagnant? are u seriously that naive? look at alchohol, look at sigarettes. u can not just show to this one article and assume its applicable for todays society. if u legalize drugs, u reduce the social stigma that exists towards it, and that will increase consumption. i dont understand how u can actually denie this. heroine is incredibly addictive, and its extremely hard for users to get off. a guy i know used heroin for several years, at the most he was on 7 shots a day and he has talked about it to me. he would literally do ANYTHING to get his hands on the next shot. that included robberies, beating up people(he operated as a torpedo for several years). why would u want more of this in a society? there is no doubt in my mind, that if u make it over the counter available, alot of people who otherwise wouldnt consider trying it, will try it. and there is a chance that alot of these people get addicted and thereby starts infringing on other peoples freedoms. that for me is enough to want to limit this certain freedom in order to provide a safer society.

an example. where in the western world is guns most available? Now where in the western world does most gun murders occur?

im gonna give u and tech this. i see ur point when it comes to criminals loosing their ability to profit on drugs. however i dont think it will effectively compensate for the negative consequenses following an increase in consumption from legalizing it.

you sound very much like the "temperance movement" during the 20's and 30's.

People in the "temperance movement" believed alcohol was the source of everyones problems and the only way to fix the country was to make alcohol illegal. And so began the prohibition of alcohol in the United States.

Look how well that turned out.

When alcohol was re-legalized, did the United States fall apart and turn into chaos? no.

 

[Ironslave]

IS: u have shown to this example before and it isnt very relevant. its based on 1950 statistics. and it doesent take into consideration alot of factors. like other drugs popularity at that point in time. peoples private economy, the populations overall awareness of drugs etc etc.

, riiiiggghttttt.... people are LESS aware of the harmful effects of drugs today than compared to 50 years ago........ moving on....

u really think if we decided to make heoin legal, that consumption would decrease or even stay stagnant? are u seriously that naive? look at alchohol, look at sigarettes.

Sure, lets look at alcohol and cigarettes! During prohibition, consumption of alcohol initially declined, then shot right back up! (you lose this argument)

Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72.

can not just show to this one article and assume its applicable for todays society. if u legalize drugs, u reduce the social stigma that exists towards it, and that will increase consumption.

You don't reduce the social stigma whatsoever. Alcohol is legal today, does this mean that it is "socially acceptable" to abuse alcohol? Hell no. If anything, it is the opposite. Having a drink is a socially acceptable thing. I look back to when I was a teenager, I was much more likely to get completely wasted because it was the "cool" thing to do, and the fact that it was illegal and I had to be sneaky to get/consume it made it more likely I was going to abuse it. Once I was legal age, naturally for a while I drank more frequently, but I was less likely to abuse it as much because it lost it's lustre, and being the drunk idiot isn't the socially "cool" thing like it was when I was a teen.

i dont understand how u can actually denie this.

Because I look at history, and I have faith in the human race... you should try both sometime....

heroine is incredibly addictive, and its extremely hard for users to get off. a guy i know used heroin for several years, at the most he was on 7 shots a day and he has talked about it to me. he would literally do ANYTHING to get his hands on the next shot. that included robberies, beating up people(he operated as a torpedo for several years). why would u want more of this in a society? there is no doubt in my mind, that if u make it over the counter available, alot of people who otherwise wouldnt consider trying it, will try it. and there is a chance that alot of these people get addicted and thereby starts infringing on other peoples freedoms. that for me is enough to want to limit this certain freedom in order to provide a safer society.

Sweet... one whole person, nice. You have so little faith in people it's absurd. If heroin was legal, it wouldn't be the "cool" thing to do. Furthermore, the dangers of it would be talked about more, and he'd be more likely to get help. Once again, heroin wasn't a problem in Britain where it was available until the 50's, and it in fact had medicinal benefit.

an example. where in the western world is guns most available? Now where in the western world does most gun murders occur?

im gonna give u and tech this. i see ur point when it comes to criminals loosing their ability to profit on drugs. however i dont think it will effectively compensate for the negative consequenses following an increase in consumption from legalizing it.

Riiigghtttt..... look at prohibition again. Look at all the violence and deaths that resulted, and how much crime has since been avoided since it was legalized. How do you think Al Capone's and similar violent gangs made their money?