Starve you wife if she refuses sex

[Bulkboy]

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.

alchohol is a different story though. alchohol had already been a part of everyday life for hundreds of years before the prohibition, so the general uprise and resistance obviously was great. taking something away from people when theyve had it available all their life is difficult. besides that, alchohol isnt nearly as dangerous of a substance as say heroine or metaamphetamine. i know that alot of people struggle with alchohol problems as well, but at the end of the day, legalizing even harder and more addictive drugs wont solve anything.

 

[Ryeland]

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.

We are still misunderstanding one another slightly. The freedom of people to get health may slightly compromise their freedom from taxes however everyone is informed of this and has the freedom to move somewhere with a private system like the states. There is still a measure of freedom there. We all have the choice to leave the country to find a place where the people share the same ideology as us. This is a great freedom.

I wasn't talking about regulating the financial sector. The government should keep its hands out of there most of the time, they should be watching it, making sure there is no corruption or shady deals. The Government should prosecute wrong doings to their fullest power.

The US does not have radically more freedoms than Canada. Your heroin example, again, while plausible doesn't reach the heart of the issue. As citizens of a free society (not a police state) we all accept that there are certain risks that come with our freedoms. We expect to be free of undue government harassment or police interference in our lives. Most of us don't need or want big brother watching over our shoulders all the time. I will gladly accept the almost insignificant risk that a heroin user will murder me to get his next fix in order to maintain my ability to go anywhere i want without police escort and have the capacity to have a few drinks at a bar.

It all comes down to this. The ends do not always justify the means. Forcing people to do the "right thing" does not make them good people. It makes them a people coerced. Giving people the choice to do some bad things makes it possible for people to choose to do the right things in their lives. With the freedom to choose your own path in life there is the opportunity to screw it up.

Freedom comes at a price. Whats the old quote "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither". The question is, since you are informed of the risks, are you willing to accept them?

 

[Bulkboy]

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

thats actually not what i meant. obviously people know more about the harmful effects today then what they did back then. they also know more about drugs in general. chances are, that during the 50s alot of people werent even aware of heroine being available. also u didnt have alot of the drugs we have today, like exctasy etc thrown into the mix. u have to agree that one statistic based on the situation in britain during the 50s doesent necessarily applie to the modern world. it doesent cut it. u need more than that. fact is, if we were to legalize it, people who are addicted would still be addicted and we would have more likeliness of people who otherwise wouldnt do it, doing it. when people can buy something over the counter, they immediately think of it as safer or more acceptable then when its illegal. just as people look at alchohol as more acceptable than say for instance heroine.

also, one thing ure ignoring here. britain reversed its policy, heroine is not legal in britain today. why is that u think?

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.

again as i said in my post to tech, alchohol is different. alchohol had already been a socially accepted drink for hundreds of years before the prohibition came into place.

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.

offc its not socially acceptable to abuse alchohol. it is however sosially acceptable to use alchohol. which offc is fine. however with certain drugs, there is no "mild" way of using it. if u use heroine, chances are its gonna turn into abuse(look at the situation of most heroin users). its that addictive and that dangerous. same goes for alot of other drugs, that u can OD with one shot on. one tablet of extacy could be fatal.

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

its not about not having faith in humans. its about realizing that the collective good sometimes is more important than my right to do as i please. i have alot of faith in humans, but people are different, some are more genetically "prone" to become addicted, and by legalizing drugs u risk these peoples freedom and health, and at the same time u risk alot of other peoples freedom, because people who are high on amfetamine are dangerous to their circumstances as well as themselves. this is why society for the most part dont want drugs to be legal. democracy as ryeland said is a group of people working together, to make the best of the space we share. and to me, making the best of the space we share does not include legalizing hard drugs, and most people would agree with me, hency why not a single country on this planet have annected ur drug policy.

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.

his story is one of many, i dont think ull come across many stories of people who have successfully sustained their heroine habit. also, i dont think anyone looks at heroine as "cool" just because its illegal. i think most people understand how dangerous it is. but legalizing it, aint gonna help in that regard. people are still gonna abuse it, just on a larger scale, because it becomes more easily available.

 

[Ironslave]

thats actually not what i meant. obviously people know more about the harmful effects today then what they did back then. they also know more about drugs in general.

You are right, they do. If they know more about the harmful effects, why are they MORE likely to abuse drugs? your answer.....

chances are, that during the 50s alot of people werent even aware of heroine being available.

... you're really struggling now to save face aren't you?

also u didnt have alot of the drugs we have today, like exctasy etc thrown into the mix.

So what? It's fair to say the people who use drugs are going to be

u have to agree that one statistic based on the situation in britain during the 50s doesent necessarily applie to the modern world.

Give me a break, like 50 people out of the however many millions of people is a pretty telling statistic. It goes to show society isn't going to fall into a drug raged tirade walking down the street like you portray it.

if we were to legalize it, people who are addicted would still be addicted and we would have more likeliness of people who otherwise wouldnt do it, doing it.

Would you try heroin? I wouldn't.... don't you have faith that with more education, instead of just ignoring it, people would be able to make smart decisions? I do...

when people can buy something over the counter, they immediately think of it as safer or more acceptable then when its illegal. just as people look at alchohol as more acceptable than say for instance heroine.

Didn't happen in Britain when it was OTC...... keep clinging to dramatic rhetoric though.

also, one thing ure ignoring here. britain reversed its policy, heroine is not legal in britain today. why is that u think?

Probably because there were morons in government who thought "omg, we need to take care of everyone, drugs are bad, lets ban them and they will all go away!!"

offc its not socially acceptable to abuse alchohol. it is however sosially acceptable to use alchohol. which offc is fine. however with certain drugs, there is no "mild" way of using it. if u use heroine, chances are its gonna turn into abuse(look at the situation of most heroin users). its that addictive and that dangerous. same goes for alot of other drugs, that u can OD with one shot on. one tablet of extacy could be fatal.

Once again, are you suggesting that it will EVER be socially acceptable to use a dangerous drug like heroin? Use will probably rise a little bit at first, and then go down exactly where it was.

[quoe]
its not about not having faith in humans. its about realizing that the collective good sometimes is more important than my right to do as i please. i have alot of faith in humans[/quote]

No you don't. You have stated many times that you feel that if drugs were legal, someone high on meth will steal your wallet walking down the street. You've also said here and many times that more people will fall into the trap of drug use, and become addicted, and will in turn become violent in their drug induced behavior.... that doesn't sound like much faith in people to me

but people are different, some are more genetically "prone" to become addicted, and by legalizing drugs u risk these peoples freedom and health, and at the same time u risk alot of other peoples freedom, because people who are high on amfetamine are dangerous to their circumstances as well as themselves.

See, you just said it again

most people would agree with me, hency why not a single country on this planet have annected ur drug policy.

Again, governments are made up of ignorant cry babies who feel the need to nanny everyone with views like you have.

his story is one of many, i dont think ull come across many stories of people who have successfully sustained their heroine habit. also, i dont think anyone looks at heroine as "cool" just because its illegal. i think most people understand how dangerous it is. but legalizing it, aint gonna help in that regard. people are still gonna abuse it, just on a larger scale, because it becomes more easily available.

Who the hell thinks "hey, this heroin is dangerous, I'm gonna ruin my life and try it!" The social aspect of it being an illegal drug and a "rebellious" thing to do is part of the reason many people try it. Furthermore, if the drugs were legal, they could be bought from legit places, be of clean (non 'laced', or dirty quality) so people wouldn't get infections, be victims of gang violence, people with addictions would feel less ashamed to seek help, and users would be less secretive in their use and thus others would be more likely to help them.

Why don't you address the statistics in the video of gun regulations causing an increase in crime? Answer... you can't. You think it's as simple as restricting supply means restricting use... it's not.

Quit being such a baby.

 

[Ryeland]

Again, governments are made up of ignorant cry babies who feel the need to nanny everyone with views like you have.

Most of your posts are really good, however this statement is not. Some members of Governments are stupid. However unless you have held some sort office before it is hard to Judge this. I was once the President of the Engineering Society on my campus (5000 members), not that this makes me an expert by any means. I am about to give a personal anecdote. It was a pain in the ass. Everyone has a million and one negative things to about you and your decisions, very few people will step up and help make it better.

The Government and the people in it are not some far off entity. They are not all retarded, they are not all ignorant. The system is screwed up, and you have to play "politics" to get anything done.

There are some very smart people in the government. Marginalizing them does not make it an attractive field for the right people to go into.

 

[co05]

Sooooo yeaaahhh... I'm against starving women...

 

[Ironslave]

Most of your posts are really good, however this statement is not. Some members of Governments are stupid. However unless you have held some sort office before it is hard to Judge this. I was once the President of the Engineering Society on my campus (5000 members), not that this makes me an expert by any means. I am about to give a personal anecdote. It was a pain in the ass. Everyone has a million and one negative things to about you and your decisions, very few people will step up and help make it better.

The Government and the people in it are not some far off entity. They are not all retarded, they are not all ignorant. The system is screwed up, and you have to play "politics" to get anything done.

There are some very smart people in the government. Marginalizing them does not make it an attractive field for the right people to go into.

All true, it was a sweeping generalization, my bad. Obviously, not all members of government are whining cry babies (see avatar), but I'd say more often than not. For the most part, people in government do have noble intentions to help as many people as they can. But, they think the best way to do that is to try and take care of people in every way they can, even the slightest, silliest things.

 

[Bulkboy]

You are right, they do. If they know more about the harmful effects, why are they MORE likely to abuse drugs? your answer.....

more disposable income, more social problems, and if u couple those factors with higher availiability and lower prices which is what a legalization will lead too u have a greater likeliness to use and abuse drugs. its that simple.

... you're really struggling now to save face aren't you?

absolutely not, i believe wholeheartedly in what im typing here and have no problem defending my statement. people werent as aware of drugs even existing back in the 50s, and the heroine wasnt available for long enough to really see addiction spread. just look at the problem today. people on heroine walk around like zombies in the street, the drug is so destructive to them, we cant even imagine what they go though. when they get off it, they experience extreme physical pain. even wearing their clothes hurts. and ur solution is legalizing it, making it cheaper and more readily available. its pretty darn naive to say the least, and i think u know deep down inside that more people will suffer if this gets passed, but ur just so busy defending this libertarian position of urs no matter the costs.

So what? It's fair to say the people who use drugs are going to be

no, no its not. u dont think that if u growing up, had heroine and amfetamine readily availabe over the counter to a decent price, u would be more likely to try it? offc u would, me and u may stay clear of it. some other kid may not, and one shot could be enough to ruin his life. that aint freedom in any sense of the word. that is fucked up.

Give me a break, like 50 people out of the however many millions of people is a pretty telling statistic. It goes to show society isn't going to fall into a drug raged tirade walking down the street like you portray it.

ok fine, keep believing that this one single statistic is telling for how society today would handle a complete legalization of all drugs. i think u know better than that though.

Would you try heroin? I wouldn't.... don't you have faith that with more education, instead of just ignoring it, people would be able to make smart decisions? I do...

no i wouldnt, so what. everyone arent like me and u. people are different. that is why society chooses to let it stay illegal. to protect fragile teens, depressed people, people whos just going through a tough time etc, from being able to go the nearest convenience store and buy and inject something that could make them addicted from the very first shot and potentially ruin their life completely.

and what education to be exact? uve earlier stated that ur against public education. ur against any government involvement into the coorporate world, and in the soda tax thread, u were furious that obama planned to tax soda companys extra. im just guessing that philosophy would applie to drugs as well. now how exactly would u go about educating and preventing people from making the choice of using drugs?

face it, ur libertarianist utopia would face some serious problems. lets go through it again. first u want to legalize drugs, then cut taxes to a minimum, eliminate government healthcare and education and the governments ability to regulate the business sector..... and u think this will lead to fewer or just as many people using/abusing drugs? hahaha hilarious

Didn't happen in Britain when it was OTC...... keep clinging to dramatic rhetoric though.

keep clinging to this shallow statistic. cuz that is all u have. ur arguments though, collapses completely.

Probably because there were morons in government who thought "omg, we need to take care of everyone, drugs are bad, lets ban them and they will all go away!!"

and u accuse me of clinging to empthy rhetoric. ive yet to meet anybody so hostile and prejudiced towards government. its not about taking care of everyone, its about laying the foundation for a society where people can live a safer and healthier life.

Once again, are you suggesting that it will EVER be socially acceptable to use a dangerous drug like heroin? Use will probably rise a little bit at first, and then go down exactly where it was.

whether its socially acceptable or not, wont matter to that one teen, who decides to try it once, then gets hooked, and end up trailing the streets searching for the next way to get a fix. what makes u think it will rise at first and then go down? are u aware of how addictive these drugs are? when u can get hooked after one single injection what makes it logical that use will go down at all?

No you don't. You have stated many times that you feel that if drugs were legal, someone high on meth will steal your wallet walking down the street. You've also said here and many times that more people will fall into the trap of drug use, and become addicted, and will in turn become violent in their drug induced behavior.... that doesn't sound like much faith in people to me

i believe a good society can be measured largely by how it treats the people who are worse off than most. having faith in people doesent equal letting everyone do as they please, and it sure as hell doesent equal thinking everyone is alike. not everyone are like me and u, some people are more genetically prone to drug use, some people have a social background that makes em more prone to drug use, and some people faces tough life situations that makes drug use seem like a way out. it has nothing to do with not having faith in people, its about being realistic. the libertarian utopia u are seeing in ur head is plain unrealistic. making it easier for these people to aquire drugs isnt the solution. realizing that people are different and building a society that takes it into account is. if having faith in people only means letting everyone do as they please, then why not make it legal to aquire tanks and nuclear weapons? im sure people will make the right choices regarding that as well

Again, governments are made up of ignorant cry babies who feel the need to nanny everyone with views like you have.

funny how u make the case of me not having faith in people, while at the same time u generalize to the extreme. Just the other way around. the government is the people, they are elected by us to make laws that protects and preserves our freedoms. they have the task of balancing negative and postive rights. u are one of those people who takes democracy and ure rights for granted. i think u could have needed to live in in a country that pursue somewhat the policy u are advocating.

Who the hell thinks "hey, this heroin is dangerous, I'm gonna ruin my life and try it!" The social aspect of it being an illegal drug and a "rebellious" thing to do is part of the reason many people try it. Furthermore, if the drugs were legal, they could be bought from legit places, be of clean (non 'laced', or dirty quality) so people wouldn't get infections, be victims of gang violence, people with addictions would feel less ashamed to seek help, and users would be less secretive in their use and thus others would be more likely to help them.

do people consume more alchohol and sigarettes than they do heroine and meth..? now, which are legal and which arent..? what makes u think the trend wouldnt continue if we were to make hard drugs legal? im not saying as many people will use them, as people use alchohol, but certainly more people. u cant refute simple logic.

and now, what kind of help would people get in ur society for their addiction? i mean, this certainly shouldnt be a role of the government should it? so now, what are u left with?

Why don't you address the statistics in the video of gun regulations causing an increase in crime? Answer... you can't. You think it's as simple as restricting supply means restricting use... it's not.

Quit being such a baby.

haha, ye john stossels unpartial show certainly reveals the current situation i love how u drag up a small town like kennesaw to support ur pro gun attitude, while completely ignoring the major national statistics. kennesaw has what 20000-30000 residents? and u automatically apply this to the rest of the nation. compare murder statistics in the US to any other western world country and ull see that when it comes to statistics u have very little to show for. another thing is, that when the gun availability is already as high as it is, it is easy to introduce such a law, and point to that as the cause of a crime reduction.


"Recently, a study published by John Lott (a Law Professor at the University of Chicago) and David Mustard (a U. Chicago graduate student) has indicated that recently enacted laws in states allowing the legal carry of concealed weapons has reduced violent crime in those states. However, there are numerous problems with this study that have not been addressed, even when directed to Professor Lott himself.

For example, when asked under the rubric of causality, how the falling crime rates affects their study, Lott said "The general changes in crime rates is not a problem for our paper since we control for individual year dummies which take out any year-to-year changes that are occurring in crime rates." What this ignores is that the year-to-year changes are precisely what is important, and if crime rates are already dropping, then adding the laws they defend and pointing to their success in lowering crime rates begs the question of causality, which they never demonstrate.

Another difficulty in his figures is population motion. For example, he claims that Florida's violent crime rate dropped dramatically after the passing of CCW laws, but he does not take into account the enormous migration of the elderly and retirees into that state during his examination period. Such an influx of elderly citizens (not usually violent criminals!) would certainly push the crime rate down, as the population of law abiding citizens rose dramatically.

Furthermore, they admit right in their study that "Using county level data has some drawbacks. Frequently, because of the low crime rates in many low population counties, it is quite common to find huge variations in the arrest and conviction rates between years." So, their solution is "to limit the sample to only counties with large populations. For counties with a large numbers of crimes, these waves have a significantly smoother flow of arrests and convictions relative to offense." Thus, the limited sample also limits the accuracy of their study. They say that "an alternative solution is to take a moving average of the arrest or conviction rates over several years," but then go on to say that this "reduces the length of the usable sample period, depending upon how many years are used to compute this average. Furthermore, the moving average solution does nothing to alleviate the effect of multiple suspects being arrested for a single crime." These are real problems which Prof. Lott did not address, even when directly asked via e-mail."

 

[Ryeland]

All true, it was a sweeping generalization, my bad. Obviously, not all members of government are whining cry babies (see avatar), but I'd say more often than not. For the most part, people in government do have noble intentions to help as many people as they can. But, they think the best way to do that is to try and take care of people in every way they can, even the slightest, silliest things.

While I agree with most of this, I think your last sentence takes the statement a little too far into hyperbole. The government doesn't take care of my slightest of silliest need. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the goal of a government is to allow its people prosper (the bush administration may have had different goals). Its how it goes about achieving that goal that defines a legislature. I do enjoy the man your avatar depicts, he is a great and logical politician.

The government is a group of our peers, not fundamentally different from us.

You have made some strong arguments here with some good data, but i believe your explanations would be better if you employed a reduction to absurdity less often.

 

[Ironslave]

While I agree with most of this, I think your last sentence takes the statement a little too far into hyperbole. The government doesn't take care of my slightest of silliest need. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the goal of a government is to allow its people prosper (the bush administration may have had different goals). Its how it goes about achieving that goal that defines a legislature. I do enjoy the man your avatar depicts, he is a great and logical politician.

The government is a group of our peers, not fundamentally different from us.

You have made some strong arguments here with some good data, but i believe your explanations would be better if you employed a reduction to absurdity less often.

It's not absurdity at all, it's just the collective mindset of government feeling the need to baby us from cradle to grave. An example happened to me this past week:

So, at my basement apartment, we are fixing out deck, as the rail broke off when I had people over. Anyways, someone from the city saw we were fixing it, and they reported it. We were fixing it without a permit (like really, why the hell am I going to apply to the city to fix my own deck on my own property), so this tool comes up, and issues me a warning that I had to get a permit by the end of the week, or else I was going to get a $100 fine a DAY.

Anyways, in the back yard where the upstairs tenants live, they have a 3 year old child, and they have a blow up like this:

When the city guy came, he made the people upstairs drain the pool immediately, because it wasn't fully enclosed with a 6 foot high fence around the whole perimeter! He said that these regulations were there to ensure it wasn't a "drowning hazard".

I was further on the student government for my University 2 years ago, and there was an incident where a girl was hit by a car (on a cross walk, mid daylight). Anyways, the whole council got this bright idea that "something had to be done" they should start a campaign (posters, pamphlets, extra crossing guards... this is a university, mind you) to raise awareness and avoid another incident. I responded and sarcastically asked if I could be in charge of the campaign and would issue the following statement:

"Warning, roads are dangerous and collision with a moving automobile is likely to bring bodily harm. Please look both ways before crossing the street. Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood student government."

I could go on and on with many more examples...

Now, to Bulkboy...

 

[Ironslave]

more disposable income, more social problems, and if u couple those factors with higher availiability and lower prices which is what a legalization will lead too u have a greater likeliness to use and abuse drugs. its that simple.

Wait, letting people keep more of their own money and having more disposable income during a recession is a bad thing? Imagine .... once again, I ask, are you going to use heroin if it's legal? I'm not...

absolutely not, i believe wholeheartedly in what im typing here and have no problem defending my statement.

I know, that's the sad part....

people werent as aware of drugs even existing back in the 50s, and the heroine wasnt available for long enough to really see addiction spread.

... people didn't know drugs existed in the 50's? What kind of rock do you think people lived under? Heroin was sold by Bayer starting in 1898. The Harrison act regulated opiates in 1914, and then it was banned in America in 1924. That's over 50 years of the drug being available, yet it still wasn't a problem in Britain 50 years later. Yet, you still think by the 50's people had no idea about drugs?

and ur solution is legalizing it, making it cheaper and more readily available. its pretty darn naive to say the least, and i think u know deep down inside that more people will suffer if this gets passed, but ur just so busy defending this libertarian position of urs no matter the costs.

My solution wipes all drug dealers, gangs, terrorist groups out of business essentially overnight. Furthermore, prisons aren't over crowded with non-violent drug users, so violent criminals, drunk drivers, and others don't get a slap on the wrist because the prison doesn't have space for them... not to mention billions upon billions of dollars are saved.

no, no its not. u dont think that if u growing up, had heroine and amfetamine readily availabe over the counter to a decent price, u would be more likely to try it? offc u would, me and u may stay clear of it. some other kid may not, and one shot could be enough to ruin his life. that aint freedom in any sense of the word. that is fucked up.

No I wouldn't. I have enough sense to know that it is dangerous, and it would be stupid to try it, that's called personal responsibility. Not to mention, my parents, teachers and other organizations would exist which would raise awareness of the harmful effects.

One shot may ruin his life? Spare me the drama.... one shot from heroin gotten by a drug dealer who made the drug injectible in his bathroom, and goofed the dosage, laced it with something else, or got dirty bacteria in it which could lead to infection could easily ruin someones lives. Being bought responsibly in a safe, controlled environment wouldn't.

ok fine, keep believing that this one single statistic is telling for how society today would handle a complete legalization of all drugs. i think u know better than that though.
no i wouldnt, so what. everyone arent like me and u. people are different. that is why society chooses to let it stay illegal. to protect fragile teens, depressed people, people whos just going through a tough time etc, from being able to go the nearest convenience store and buy and inject something that could make them addicted from the very first shot and potentially ruin their life completely.

keep clinging to this shallow statistic. cuz that is all u have. ur arguments though, collapses completely.

LOL, 50 people in a country of around 50 million is a pretty telling statistic, and it shows that people aren't going to flock to drugs like you suggest. Keep going with your pessimistic rhetoric without a single shred of evidence though....

and what education to be exact? uve earlier stated that ur against public education. ur against any government involvement into the coorporate world, and in the soda tax thread, u were furious that obama planned to tax soda companys extra. im just guessing that philosophy would applie to drugs as well. now how exactly would u go about educating and preventing people from making the choice of using drugs?

Easy, parents would educate their children like they are supposed to. It's a fact that many parents don't ever discuss the harms of drug use with their kids today, because drugs are illegal, so they don't even bother to acknowledge they exist. Again, there would also be less social "peer pressure" to use it because it wouldn't be the "cool thing to do" because it's illegal. This was always half the fun when I drank as a teen, the fact that it was illegal and a "rebellious" thing to do.

Furthermore, school teachers would also educate the kids more of the dangers of drugs at school. None of this would change...

face it, ur libertarianist utopia would face some serious problems. lets go through it again. first u want to legalize drugs, then cut taxes to a minimum, eliminate government healthcare and education and the governments ability to regulate the business sector..... and u think this will lead to fewer or just as many people using/abusing drugs? hahaha hilarious

whether its socially acceptable or not, wont matter to that one teen, who decides to try it once, then gets hooked, and end up trailing the streets searching for the next way to get a fix. what makes u think it will rise at first and then go down? are u aware of how addictive these drugs are? when u can get hooked after one single injection what makes it logical that use will go down at all?

In the streets looking for his next fix? Um, hello... that only happens now where the drugs are bought in the street the first place!

Furthermore, I'm much more aware physiologically of what is needed to get hooked on drugs which act through the dopaminergic reward pathway than you are, and this isn't even up for debate. The fact that I have knowledge on this is why I can laugh at you for suggesting a single shot coming from someone like a doctor or pharmacist in a controlled environment is going to cause one person's life to spiral out of control.

I'm going to skip the rest, because you keep repeating yourself, and it's all the same nonsense...

do people consume more alchohol and sigarettes than they do heroine and meth..? now, which are legal and which arent..? what makes u think the trend wouldnt continue if we were to make hard drugs legal? im not saying as many people will use them, as people use alchohol, but certainly more people. u cant refute simple logic.

It's not simple logic, it's logic coming from a simple mind. Did alcohol use go down? A little bit at first (it was already on a down trend anyways), they it went right back up! People consume more alcohol and cigarettes because they know that the dangers are nothing in comparison. I wouldn't use it, and I'd be damn sure my kids would never use it, and I'd discourage my friends from doing it. Again, being bought in a controlled environment, the addiction would not happen. Further, if an addict went in to their doctor/pharmacist, then the doctor/pharmacist could help them, rather than relegating them to the street to get it from a drug dealer.

and now, what kind of help would people get in ur society for their addiction? i mean, this certainly shouldnt be a role of the government should it? so now, what are u left with?

Don't you believe in charities? Or that people would help out those in need? I plan to be a doctor, and I can guarantee you that I would care for any patient who came to me with a drug addiction and needed help. Furthermore, if doctors offices/pharmacies were the ones to sell these, people would be able to be seen more by trained professionals who can give them help. Now, people needing a "fix" can only go to the street to their dealer to try and find some. Legalizing it would allow people needing a "fix" to go to their doctor/pharmacist, who would recognize the problem, and would give them medical care and attention to help them break the habit. Those that go to the street just get more and more of the drug to alleviate the withdrawal, which ultimately ends up in disaster.

Look at how many private rehab/therapy clinics exist today. They have them for people with depression, alcohol/drug abuse, eating disorders, countless others.

compare murder statistics in the US to any other western world country and ull see that when it comes to statistics u have very little to show for. another thing is, that when the gun availability is already as high as it is, it is easy to introduce such a law, and point to that as the cause of a crime reduction.

I posted this before, of course, you completely ignored it, and you continue to preach these simpleton statistics.

"The non-firearm murder rate in the US is higher than in those countries people are always comparing the U.S. to (England, Australia, Japan, et cetera). Did the availability of guns in the U.S. somehow cause a rise in murders that are done with matches, poison, knives, baseball bats, ice picks, hammers, shovels, et cetera? Even if every murder that was committed with a gun were erased from history, our murder rate still would be higher than in these countries. "

More americans kill each other through ways other than shootings than people in these other countries kill each other in any way!

http://www.musclemecca.com/showpost.php?p=321434&postcount=36

Furthermore, there's this report from Harvard Law:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Conclusion:

This*Article*has*reviewed*a*significant*amount*of*evidence*
from*a*wide*variety*of*international*sources.*Each*individual*
portion*of* evidence* is* subject* to* cavil—at* the*very* least* the*
general* objection* that* the*persuasiveness* of* social* scientific*
evidence* cannot* remotely* approach* the* persuasiveness* of*
conclusions* in* the* physical* sciences.*Nevertheless,* the* bur‐
den*of*proof*rests*on*the*proponents*of*the*more*guns*equal*
more* death* and* fewer* guns* equal* less* death*mantra,* espe‐
cially* since* they* argue* public* policy* ought* to* be* based* on*
that*mantra.
149* To* bear* that* burden*would* at* the* very* least*
require* showing* that* a* large* number* of* nations*with*more*
guns* have*more* death* and* that* nations* that* have* imposed*
stringent* gun* controls*have* achieved* substantial* reductions*
in* criminal* violence* (or* suicide).* But* those* correlations* are*
not*observed*when*a* large*number*of*nations*are*compared*
across*the*world.*

"Recently, a study published by John Lott (a Law Professor at the University of Chicago) and David Mustard (a U. Chicago graduate student) has indicated that recently enacted laws in states allowing the legal carry of concealed weapons has reduced violent crime in those states. However, there are numerous problems with this study that have not been addressed, even when directed to Professor Lott himself.

For example, when asked under the rubric of causality, how the falling crime rates affects their study, Lott said "The general changes in crime rates is not a problem for our paper since we control for individual year dummies which take out any year-to-year changes that are occurring in crime rates." What this ignores is that the year-to-year changes are precisely what is important, and if crime rates are already dropping, then adding the laws they defend and pointing to their success in lowering crime rates begs the question of causality, which they never demonstrate.

Another difficulty in his figures is population motion. For example, he claims that Florida's violent crime rate dropped dramatically after the passing of CCW laws, but he does not take into account the enormous migration of the elderly and retirees into that state during his examination period. Such an influx of elderly citizens (not usually violent criminals!) would certainly push the crime rate down, as the population of law abiding citizens rose dramatically.

Furthermore, they admit right in their study that "Using county level data has some drawbacks. Frequently, because of the low crime rates in many low population counties, it is quite common to find huge variations in the arrest and conviction rates between years." So, their solution is "to limit the sample to only counties with large populations. For counties with a large numbers of crimes, these waves have a significantly smoother flow of arrests and convictions relative to offense." Thus, the limited sample also limits the accuracy of their study. They say that "an alternative solution is to take a moving average of the arrest or conviction rates over several years," but then go on to say that this "reduces the length of the usable sample period, depending upon how many years are used to compute this average. Furthermore, the moving average solution does nothing to alleviate the effect of multiple suspects being arrested for a single crime." These are real problems which Prof. Lott did not address, even when directly asked via e-mail."

So what? This essentially says "no study is perfect"... umm... duh.

 

[Ryeland]

It's not absurdity at all, it's just the collective mindset of government feeling the need to baby us from cradle to grave. An example happened to me this past week:

So, at my basement apartment, we are fixing out deck, as the rail broke off when I had people over. Anyways, someone from the city saw we were fixing it, and they reported it. We were fixing it without a permit (like really, why the hell am I going to apply to the city to fix my own deck on my own property), so this tool comes up, and issues me a warning that I had to get a permit by the end of the week, or else I was going to get a $100 fine a DAY.

Anyways, in the back yard where the upstairs tenants live, they have a 3 year old child, and they have a blow up like this:

When the city guy came, he made the people upstairs drain the pool immediately, because it wasn't fully enclosed with a 6 foot high fence around the whole perimeter! He said that these regulations were there to ensure it wasn't a "drowning hazard".

I was further on the student government for my University 2 years ago, and there was an incident where a girl was hit by a car (on a cross walk, mid daylight). Anyways, the whole council got this bright idea that "something had to be done" they should start a campaign (posters, pamphlets, extra crossing guards... this is a university, mind you) to raise awareness and avoid another incident. I responded and sarcastically asked if I could be in charge of the campaign and would issue the following statement:

"Warning, roads are dangerous and collision with a moving automobile is likely to bring bodily harm. Please look both ways before crossing the street. Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood student government."

I could go on and on with many more examples...

Now, to Bulkboy...

Your first story, is just plain funny. Stupid and funny. I too have dealt with shit like this. This isn't so much poor government as some city official wanting to make himself feel important. His goal was not to baby you, but to make sure he has a job. However you may be right in that he was to ensure the city could baby you and make sure you weren't screwing it up.

And while the woman getting hit by the car sucks, your response was pretty damn funny.

I guess I am just uncomfortable with people marginalizing the government and the people who make it up some far off different species. The government can (and does) make some very stupid decisions, but that is a result, more often than not of our collective stupidity as a society.

 

[co05]

The government can (and does) make some very stupid decisions, but that is a result, more often than not of our collective stupidity as a society.

After all, we are the people who get them into office.

 

[tim290280]

When the city guy came, he made the people upstairs drain the pool immediately, because it wasn't fully enclosed with a 6 foot high fence around the whole perimeter! He said that these regulations were there to ensure it wasn't a "drowning hazard".

I was further on the student government for my University 2 years ago, and there was an incident where a girl was hit by a car (on a cross walk, mid daylight). Anyways, the whole council got this bright idea that "something had to be done" they should start a campaign (posters, pamphlets, extra crossing guards... this is a university, mind you) to raise awareness and avoid another incident. I responded and sarcastically asked if I could be in charge of the campaign and would issue the following statement:

"Warning, roads are dangerous and collision with a moving automobile is likely to bring bodily harm. Please look both ways before crossing the street. Sincerely, your friendly neighborhood student government."

I could go on and on with many more examples...

I think you are mistaking the "nanny govt" with politicians appeasing lobby groups, especially those of the community action group type.

The lobby groups have a lot of sway as they stir up emotions. Emotions leads to votes, votes get career politicians back in at the next election.

I'm also a little sick of this blaming the govt and govt organisations for everything and calling them crap. I've worked on both sides and can safely say you need both.

E.g. In my field, every private company likes to do research. The difference being that most of the decent research is done by the govt bodies as they don't have to take shortcuts (etc). The amount of absolute garbage research and claims I have seen is laughable, most of it at the hands of private companies.

 

[Bulkboy]

Wait, letting people keep more of their own money and having more disposable income during a recession is a bad thing? Imagine .... once again, I ask, are you going to use heroin if it's legal? I'm not...

what are u talking about? i said people today have more disposable income and the likeliness of greater consumption through all layers of the population therefore increases and u start dragging in the recession and ive already answered ur question, what are u nagging about? offc i wouldnt do heroine if it was legal knowing what i know now. but not everyone are like me and u, different situations can serve to make people more prone to using drugs. me and u have been blessed, growing up in good familys, in rich countries, having opportunities laid out infront of us. not everyone are as lucky, and i want to give these people a chance as well.

I know, that's the sad part....

right back at ya! and im being completely honest now. there is nothing about ur views that appeal even the slightest bit to me. u accuse me of being thickheaded, but the fact is that if anyone is its u. ur world consists of absolutes. u preach how the government is always bad, everything the government does is always inefficient, and still, u and me live in countries that ranks on top of the list when it comes to life quality because of, not despite of our government. u should show some more gratitude towards a system that allows u, and provides u with the tools to succeed in life. and if u really think its all that bad, why not go to a country that pursue somewhat the ideology u preach, and then maybe ur views will change of what a good society really is.

... people didn't know drugs existed in the 50's? What kind of rock do you think people lived under? Heroin was sold by Bayer starting in 1898. The Harrison act regulated opiates in 1914, and then it was banned in America in 1924. That's over 50 years of the drug being available, yet it still wasn't a problem in Britain 50 years later. Yet, you still think by the 50's people had no idea about drugs?

the reason why it was banned during the 50s was probably because one saw that addiction was spreading wouldnt u think? drug use as a recreational activity in the western world wasnt as widespread and attractive before this time. couple this with a booming economy that gave ordinary people more money in their pocket and u have a recipe for more widespread use. thats why it was banned, because one feared the number of addicts would increase along with the current trend of actually using it as a recreational drug.

My solution wipes all drug dealers, gangs, terrorist groups out of business essentially overnight. Furthermore, prisons aren't over crowded with non-violent drug users, so violent criminals, drunk drivers, and others don't get a slap on the wrist because the prison doesn't have space for them... not to mention billions upon billions of dollars are saved.

u make it sound like some adventure land, reality is alittle different though.

ur solution puts criminals out of the business of selling drugs, sure. however, what makes u think these criminals wont pursue a different line of crime afterwards? theres no automacy in a crime reduction. sure ull eliminate the business of selling the drug, but u will be facing other problems. more users will definetely lead to more violent crime, more traffic accidents, more poverty, less worker production, more child neglect etc. and with ur minimized government there will be less ability to take care of all the people suffering.

No I wouldn't. I have enough sense to know that it is dangerous, and it would be stupid to try it, that's called personal responsibility. Not to mention, my parents, teachers and other organizations would exist which would raise awareness of the harmful effects.

One shot may ruin his life? Spare me the drama.... one shot from heroin gotten by a drug dealer who made the drug injectible in his bathroom, and goofed the dosage, laced it with something else, or got dirty bacteria in it which could lead to infection could easily ruin someones lives. Being bought responsibly in a safe, controlled environment wouldn't.

i said it would increase the LIKELINESS of u trying a drug. u cant sit here and say that if drugs were legal u would never try them growing up. thats arrogant. if i had heroine availabe at a conveniece store when i was 15 years old, i cant guarantee i wouldnt try it. i can say i wouldnt try it today, knowing what i know. but when ure a teen things are abit different. i mean i drank alchohol when i was 15. there is no way u can reduce it all to personal responsibility. when ure a teen growing up, mistakes can be made, and we owe it to people not making it easier to make mistakes that can fuck up their life.

and what teachers would teach u about drug awareness exactly? in ur libertarian utopia public schools doesent exist right? so im guessing we are talking about private schools. now imagine ur parents couldnt afford to send u to a private school. how is it fair then, that children of poor parents would get little awareness at all about drugs? ure facing some tough choices here. in ur society, poor people are basically fucked over more brutally than ever.

LOL, 50 people in a country of around 50 million is a pretty telling statistic, and it shows that people aren't going to flock to drugs like you suggest. Keep going with your pessimistic rhetoric without a single shred of evidence though....

what happend when alaska legalized marihuana? the consumption doubled among teens compared to the national average, and the population voted to make it illegal again. what examples exactly do u have of drug legalization reducing or keeping consumption stagnant other than ur outdated 50s statistics? do u have any modern day examples?

Easy, parents would educate their children like they are supposed to. It's a fact that many parents don't ever discuss the harms of drug use with their kids today, because drugs are illegal, so they don't even bother to acknowledge they exist. Again, there would also be less social "peer pressure" to use it because it wouldn't be the "cool thing to do" because it's illegal. This was always half the fun when I drank as a teen, the fact that it was illegal and a "rebellious" thing to do.

Furthermore, school teachers would also educate the kids more of the dangers of drugs at school. None of this would change...

dude, not many people think heroin is "cool" people who start using heroin often have serious problems in their life before starting. there is no logic in less teens trying heroin if its legal, because its no longer "the cool thing" why do so many teens drink? because they get older friends to buy alchohol for them. now if drugs are legal in a convenience store, what makes it so unrealistic that teens would just let older friends buy them drugs.

and there u go again with the school teachers and educating. problem is, in ur society we no longer have enough tax revenues to pay for schools or teachers. so that means education is limited to a certain amount of people who can afford it. this certainly cant be fair huh? that the size of ur parents wallet is gonna decide whether u get education about the dangers of drug use?

Furthermore, I'm much more aware physiologically of what is needed to get hooked on drugs which act through the dopaminergic reward pathway than you are, and this isn't even up for debate. The fact that I have knowledge on this is why I can laugh at you for suggesting a single shot coming from someone like a doctor or pharmacist in a controlled environment is going to cause one person's life to spiral out of control.

psychologically u can get hooked on heroin after one injection. it makes u feel that good. now, afew more injections and ur body is hooked as well. it doesent take long to build up a dependance on the stuff, u cant denie that. just look at heroin junkies in the streets- and the widthdrawal is beyond extreme. the dude i know who is an ex heroin user. said he was literally sick for months, with fewers, and physical pain, when getting off the stuff.

It's not simple logic, it's logic coming from a simple mind. Did alcohol use go down? A little bit at first (it was already on a down trend anyways), they it went right back up! People consume more alcohol and cigarettes because they know that the dangers are nothing in comparison. I wouldn't use it, and I'd be damn sure my kids would never use it, and I'd discourage my friends from doing it. Again, being bought in a controlled environment, the addiction would not happen. Further, if an addict went in to their doctor/pharmacist, then the doctor/pharmacist could help them, rather than relegating them to the street to get it from a drug dealer.

again, alchohol is a different story as ive repeatedly said. u cant compare something that has been around in the western world for hundreds of years, and which is alot less powerful with drugs like meth and heroine. also, sure people wouldnt be consuming as much hard drugs as they consume alchohol and sigarettes. my point is that they would consume more. this point is irrefutable, there is no logic behind consumption going down when availability goes way up and price goes way down. every macroeconomic thinking refutes ur point. and u really think addiction would not occur just because they are bought legally? the psychological and physiological abilitys of the drugs are still the same, legal or not. now ure just making stuff up here.

Don't you believe in charities? Or that people would help out those in need? I plan to be a doctor, and I can guarantee you that I would care for any patient who came to me with a drug addiction and needed help. Furthermore, if doctors offices/pharmacies were the ones to sell these, people would be able to be seen more by trained professionals who can give them help. Now, people needing a "fix" can only go to the street to their dealer to try and find some. Legalizing it would allow people needing a "fix" to go to their doctor/pharmacist, who would recognize the problem, and would give them medical care and attention to help them break the habit. Those that go to the street just get more and more of the drug to alleviate the withdrawal, which ultimately ends up in disaster.

Look at how many private rehab/therapy clinics exist today. They have them for people with depression, alcohol/drug abuse, eating disorders, countless others.

charities is one thing, but societys that depends completely on private charity are not able to help out all those who need it. its that simple. u saying u would take care of a patient is noble, but what if 100 patients came? u cant take care of all, and also, u need to get paid. how about all those who cant pay for medical services? in ur society there is no public healthcare, so medical services will remain something that only those with money can afford. the rest wont be able to get help for their addiction, except those who are lucky enough to get help from private charities.

I posted this before, of course, you completely ignored it, and you continue to preach these simpleton statistics.

"The non-firearm murder rate in the US is higher than in those countries people are always comparing the U.S. to (England, Australia, Japan, et cetera). Did the availability of guns in the U.S. somehow cause a rise in murders that are done with matches, poison, knives, baseball bats, ice picks, hammers, shovels, et cetera? Even if every murder that was committed with a gun were erased from history, our murder rate still would be higher than in these countries. "

More americans kill each other through ways other than shootings than people in these other countries kill each other in any way!

http://www.musclemecca.com/showpost.php?p=321434&postcount=36

Furthermore, there's this report from Harvard Law:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

comparing the US to Russia is kinda misleading. Russia is a country with massive corruption and poverty levels. funny how gun advocated always compare to the worst off countries when trying to defend their pro gun position. countries like Russia, mexico and columbia. all countries with enormeous social and economic problems. how about comparing with ur peers? look at US murder statistics compared to other western european countries. im all with u that more crime of all types happends in the US. but still, lets say that we have 50000 people with murder tendencies in two countries. and that one of the countries have 3 times the amount of guns floating around. obviously, in this country, the people with murderous tendencies will be better able to carry it out.

some interesting statistics, and pretty telling as well.

Percents of households with a handgun

Country Households - %
United States 29
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1



Handgun murders 1992:

Country handgun murders

USA: 13429
Switzerland: 97
canada: 128
sweden: 36
australia: 13
UK: 33
japan: 60


now again, statistics are clearly in my favour when comparing the US to europe, which has far stricter gun control. theres no denying this. guns drastically increases the feasibility of murders. murdering a human being with a blunt weapon or a knife is alot more difficult than murdering someone with a gun.

So what? This essentially says "no study is perfect"... umm... duh.

not really, it reveals serious weaknesses to ur statistics.

 

[Ironslave]

what are u talking about? i said people today have more disposable income and the likeliness of greater consumption through all layers of the population therefore increases and u start dragging in the recession

I’m merely pointing out an additional massive benefit of ending the stupid war on drugs. Myself and Tech have posted before how something like 60 billion dollars a year would be saved in the US by getting rid of the DEA. It is plain silly to think that people with more disposable income are going to spend it on drugs.

u accuse me of being thickheaded, but the fact is that if anyone is its u. ur world consists of absolutes. u preach how the government is always bad, everything the government does is always inefficient, and still, u and me live in countries that ranks on top of the list when it comes to life quality because of, not despite of our government. u should show some more gratitude towards a system that allows u, and provides u with the tools to succeed in life. and if u really think its all that bad, why not go to a country that pursue somewhat the ideology u preach, and then maybe ur views will change of what a good society really is.
and what teachers would teach u about drug awareness exactly? in ur libertarian utopia public schools doesent exist right? so im guessing we are talking about private schools. now imagine ur parents couldnt afford to send u to a private school. how is it fair then, that children of poor parents would get little awareness at all about drugs? ure facing some tough choices here. in ur society, poor people are basically fucked over more brutally than ever.

The only absolutes are the strawman arguments you keep accusing me of, which are COMPLETELY false, which is why you’re such a lousy debater. (any time you resort to arguments which are clearly not your opponents position, your credibility goes down the tubes).
Firstly, I ask you, where I have EVER argued in favor of pure anarchism, and doing away with all public schools? I haven’t, this is a strawman argument by you. I’ve mentioned before I like the Freedman-esque system for education and health care, which provides some basic services, but overall MASSIVELY cuts down on wasteful, inefficient spending, encourages service providers to provide the best service (quality of education, health care, etc) and allows people more freedom of choice.
If you think in a system like this that the costs will be as high as many prestigious private schools are now, you are simply delusional. Costs would HAVE to drop. This is seen with essentially every market service, computers, eye surgery, calculators, quality goes up, and costs go down. Same thing would happen with schools, there is little private school competition in many areas, which is why they can keep costs high. For example, there are many more daycare places for young children which are pay for service than there are private schools. Costs for these are EASILY affordable.

the reason why it was banned during the 50s was probably because one saw that addiction was spreading wouldnt u think?

Yeah, 50 people in a country of 50 million, that is 0.000001% of the population …. Oh my Bulkboy, lets say that even 5 times, 10times, or even 100 times as many people start abusing heroin, you are still looking at 0.000005%, 0.00001%, 0.0001% of the population. And you think this would be enough to cause crime/murders, robberies to increase more than 60 billion dollars a year?

ur solution puts criminals out of the business of selling drugs, sure. however, what makes u think these criminals wont pursue a different line of crime afterwards? theres no automacy in a crime reduction. sure ull eliminate the business of selling the drug, but u will be facing other problems. more users will definetely lead to more violent crime, more traffic accidents, more poverty, less worker production, more child neglect etc. and with ur minimized government there will be less ability to take care of all the people suffering.

You actually think there will be MORE violent crime?? … I’m sorry, but this is just stupid. Look at all the murders over drugs, and again, all the terrorism funded by drugs (Afghan opium anyone??), it would all plummet, it would have to. Quit being such a drama queen. It’s disgusting how little faith you have in people that you think society will turn into violent drug abusers who go around killing people because they’re high. This is just LAUGHABLE .
Traffic accidents? … now you’re really struggling.
Poverty?? You mean saving 60 billion dollars a year would mean MORE poverty?? Weren’t you the one who already said people would have MORE disposable income?? (yes you were :music)… how does more disposable income mean more poverty?? Now you’re flat out contradicting yourself.
Arguments about thinking it is necessary to protect some people from themselves is an individual perception, and come down to what people’s thoughts of the role of government should be. That is fine, and can be debated…. but all this complete nonsense you’re getting on with is just over dramatic, illogical, and just plain dumb.

i said it would increase the LIKELINESS of u trying a drug. u cant sit here and say that if drugs were legal u would never try them growing up. thats arrogant. if i had heroine availabe at a conveniece store when i was 15 years old, i cant guarantee i wouldnt try it. i can say i wouldnt try it today, knowing what i know. but when ure a teen things are abit different. i mean i drank alchohol when i was 15. there is no way u can reduce it all to personal responsibility. when ure a teen growing up, mistakes can be made, and we owe it to people not making it easier to make mistakes that can fuck up their life.

They were illegal, and I have tried them. I’ve never done any injectable drugs, but I’ve done many other social ones. We both know you’re full of shit when you say that at 15 you would walk into a corner store, and might decide to take a shot of heroin
Once again, if it was sold by doctors/pharmacists, they could inform people about the dangers of drugs, and people who were addicted would be seen by health care professionals (they wouldn’t be out in the streets looking for their fix, they could go in to their medical center, and get help).

I’m getting tired of this, you keep resorting to the same complete nonsense strawman arguments. You continue to distort my position, which makes your arguments senseless. I will comment on this:

some interesting statistics, and pretty telling as well.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR SIMPLE MIND…. Americans kill each other through non firearm means than countries like England, Australia, Japan, etc etc do through any form of murder!!
I know you can’t get it through your think skull anything but the most elementary (but more guns are available, meaning they will be used more)….. however, evidence and major reports do NOT support this. So, we can either look at reports, such as the one from Harvard Law I posted (you didn’t even acknowledge it), or we can report to rhetoric coming from the International Journal of Bulkboy’s ass, and also statitistics which make ABSOLUTELY ZERO inference on causality.

 

[Ironslave]

I think you are mistaking the "nanny govt" with politicians appeasing lobby groups, especially those of the community action group type.

The lobby groups have a lot of sway as they stir up emotions. Emotions leads to votes, votes get career politicians back in at the next election.

They do, and this is part of the problem.

I'm also a little sick of this blaming the govt and govt organisations for everything and calling them crap. I've worked on both sides and can safely say you need both.

I never advocated a society of anarchy, but governments are by nature less efficient. Speaking out against massive sized and budgeted governments isn't mean advocating no government, just very small one.

E.g. In my field, every private company likes to do research. The difference being that most of the decent research is done by the govt bodies as they don't have to take shortcuts (etc). The amount of absolute garbage research and claims I have seen is laughable, most of it at the hands of private companies.

I disagree with this. Which federal department were those Watson and Crick guys with? How many scientific breakthroughs have come from government labs?

 

[Big VIC]

I <3 Ironslave

That is all.

 

[tim290280]

I never advocated a society of anarchy, but governments are by nature less efficient. Speaking out against massive sized and budgeted governments isn't mean advocating no government, just very small one.

While I agree with govt's generally being inefficient, they are by nature of their laze fare able to spend time doing a lot of the things that commercial organisations don't have the time or financial incentive to do.

They are needed to do a lot of the things that pave the way for industry. Ground work is normally needed, but I'd say a bigger failing of govt is not handing over to private industry at the appropriate time.

I disagree with this. Which federal department were those Watson and Crick guys with? How many scientific breakthroughs have come from government labs?

I wasn't aware that Clare College (or Kings College where Rosalind Franklin worked) was anything other than a university. They aren't dissimilar to govt bodies and generally rely on govt funding and industry research $$ from govt levies.

I'll throw one bit of data I dug up the other day to dismiss your point: 80% of Australian wheat varieties grown last year were developed by govt research departments. If this is taken one step further, the other ~20% were developed from govt developed varieties. This has just become privatised as private companies now have enough resources invested for govt to get out of developing wheat varieties in Australia.

Now remember that this is for a staple food that has been in development for ~10,000yrs. You would think that at some stage private companies in Australia would have been breeding wheat in the last ~250yrs for our conditions rather than govt having to

 

[Ironslave]

I'll throw one bit of data I dug up the other day to dismiss your point: 80% of Australian wheat varieties grown last year were developed by govt research departments. If this is taken one step further, the other ~20% were developed from govt developed varieties. This has just become privatised as private companies now have enough resources invested for govt to get out of developing wheat varieties in Australia.

Now remember that this is for a staple food that has been in development for ~10,000yrs. You would think that at some stage private companies in Australia would have been breeding wheat in the last ~250yrs for our conditions rather than govt having to

I'm not familiar with the Australian wheat crops, and have no idea why a private company couldn't come in and profit from it, but I find it quite strange. Were they not allowed to? Does anybody own the land? Is there a market for it?

I am familiar with another example.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411

New Zealand started eliminating farm subsidies in the mid 80's, which at the time consisted of 30 separate production payments and export incentives and accounted for more than 30 percent of the value of production. Initially, people naturally bitched and moaned, "wah wah government, where's my handout?

" They thought the industry would go down the tubes, people would go out of business, production would hault, etc etc....


what happened? Only 1% percent of farms went under, and the industry has flourished. Farm output in New Zealand has soared 40 percent in constant dollar terms since the mid-1980s. Agriculture's share of New Zealand's economic output has risen slightly, from a pre-reform 14 percent to 17 percent today, and productivity in the industry has averaged 6 percent growth annually, compared with just 1 percent before reform.

Why did this happen?

They cut costs, diversified their land use, sought non-farm income opportunities and altered production as market signals advised -- for example, by reducing sheep numbers and boosting cattle ranching. Farmers were aided on the cost side as input prices fell, because suppliers could no longer count on subsidies to inflate demand.

The striving for greater efficiency also supported environmental protection as marginal land farmed only to collect subsidies was replaced with native bush, and overuse of fertilizers ended when fertilizer subsidies were removed.

It's an example of the removal of subsidies forcing them to be more effective and efficient, and more in tune with consumer demands.