Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle

Reuters ^

[RCW2001]

NEW YORK, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Three Israeli nationals were arrested and accused of trying to smuggle $42 million worth of hallucinogenic Ecstasy pills to the United States from Belgium, the largest such drug seizure ever in Europe, U.S. authorities said on Wednesday.

The three men tried to smuggle 1.4 million pills inside diamond polishing tables bound for New York by ship from Antwerp, according to a statement from the office of Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Tipped off by witnesses who saw two of the men stuffing the pills into three tables inside an Antwerp warehouse in August, authorities allowed the tables to be delivered -- without the pills -- to New York where they were put under surveillance.

The three men were arrested on Tuesday as they were retrieving the tables and trying to deliver the drugs to a buyer, the statement said.

The case marks the largest Ecstasy seizure in Europe and the third largest such seizure in the United States, with a wholesale value of about $14 million and a retail value of about $42 million, officials said.

Arrested were Nachshow Sinvanni, who allegedly wanted to buy 900,000 of the pills for distribution; and Ofir Lebar and Ofir Weizman, who were spotted packing the tables with drugs in Belgium, officials said. All three men live in Israel, authorities said.

They each were charged with conspiring to import MDMA, the technical name for Ecstasy and, if convicted, face a possible prison sentence of 20 years and a $1 million fine. ((New York newsdesk, 646 223 6280))

[Rocksalt]

"Irrelevant---people have sought highs from many substances not intended for that purpose."

The fact that legal narcotics would be intended for human consumption makes my point relevant.Airplane glue is not sold for human consumption.It serves a function other than intoxication and therefore people who abuse it to get high are clearly responsible if they misuse it.If narcotics were sanctioned people should expect these substances to be safe.They are not,so how could they be knowingly sold for human consumption?

"ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it."

Good point there,but that does not hold true for cocaine.The common refinement of coke into crack lends some creedence to my point.

"When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?"

You are confusing rational thinking with end consequences in mind with babble.

"This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality."

You can't accept that I feel these two legal drugs have different characteristics than narcotics.

[Rocksalt]

"Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others."

This could be true in a perfect world.As it is,meth cooks plying their trade near other homes creates severe environmental hazards for others.Again,what you are saying is true,in a perfect world.I just think the facilitation of narcotics procurement to the general public is a bad idea.For citizens to have the right to do whatever they want is a good intention,but in this case the realitys would be grim.

"So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws."

The history of the WOD since it's inception has been an attempt to protect citizens from harm. Granted it has many bad aspects.Until a majority of citizens feel the same way you do about the issue,or the supreme court rules against the WOD,how is this situation going to change? States currently are fighting the feds over the medical pot issue.Maybe if the supreme court somehow upholds the rights of the states to govern themselves this could have implications for all illicit drugs. Is this true of false?

"Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none."

It would seem to me until the supreme court unsurps the power of the feds to enforce drug laws that are unconstitutional,how is the situation going to change?

" Tyranny of the majority is tyranny."

Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional.Natural law is hard to define as I see it.

"You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen)."

You can honestly assert that the number of alcohol poinsoning deaths is comparable to the number of narcotics OD's. Any way about it,by weight narcotics are much more lethal than alcohol. You and I both know that to OD on booze,you've gotta drink a hell of a lot and this is much different than a substance where a few extra cc's could stop breathing.My original point is valid.

"Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.

"Still waiting for evidence .... "

Addiction cycles,widespread use leading to OD's,curious non-users experimenting,violent behavior,all factors which you refute.You tell me how the use of MDMA and crack would be of benefit to someone,sure it would be great to have the right to do what we please,but aside from that,what purpose would it serve? I know meth use results in violent behavior,you assert it does not.You feel drugs should be legal,I claim it would be a can of worms.I wish to avoid drug chaos,you feel chaos would not result.Would it be worth chaos to claim another right?

"So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?"

What about state laws? If the federal goverment suddenly bowed out of the WOD would you be happy adhereing to state drug laws?

"nobody I know is itching to start using heroin."

You have to understand the way people end up trying and using heroin.Many people are curious about it.The usage of it by teens went way up in the last ten years because the idea that it was fairly safe was put in their heads by others who were using .Over the past several years there has been a problem with youngsters ODing on a combination of junk and alcohol.Dropping like flys as they did'nt realise the combination of the two is sneaky and lethal.There are many curious individuals who would try anything they can get their hands on.What happens when everything is readily available.You don't have to agree with me,just acknowledge they could be some potential problems.

"My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage."

OK-how does that support your point? What if the neighbors happen to be visiting? How can a law prevent people from possessing dynamite assuming they are going to let it get old and explosive,or that they will allow it to come in contact with static electricity and explode? Does this not presume harm may result and attempt to protect them?

"What do you imagine "drug freedom" means, then?"

Drug freedom in a sense that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies and minds is a concept I support. The part of your vision I can't get behind is the actual result of allowing them to do this.And as you well know,I feel there would be some real complications with getting the drugs into their hands and some questions about what other hands the drugs would end up in.

"What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business."

That figure was obviously thrown in to get the point across.Who are you to make a judgement on how close is too close though?

"No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."

Air is a big stretch-You did'nt actually refute the fact that these people had been using drugs prior to the visit.That's a huge number of incidents,I'd call that a clear blow-off.Why don't you just admit drugs are dangerous,and you're willing to assume the risks,at any cost?

"I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks."

And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths,drugs getting into the hands of teens and children,potential violent behaviors,increased divorce rate and family problems,kids getting the idea that since drugs are legal,they must be safe,etc.
And I realise all that I say is conjecture and speculation,but as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked.

[MrLeRoy]

"You, in your previous post: "if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great."

"I haven't seen this many flips since the last time I went to the circus."

People using drugs in their own home is one thing,I'm saying that I have not seen an acceptable method of distribution proposed.No flip there.

You're flipping away from the text I've now bolded. You voiced acceptance for heroin sales in state narcotics store---that's a method of distribution.

[MrLeRoy]

If narcotics were sanctioned people should expect these substances to be safe.They are not

Neither are alcohol and tobacco.

"ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it."

Good point there,but that does not hold true for cocaine.The common refinement of coke into crack lends some creedence to my point.

It lends credence to your point only if people are buying powder cocaine and making their own crack; how "common" is that?

"When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?"

You are confusing rational thinking with end consequences in mind with babble.

<sigh> Do you understand that when your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom?

"This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality."

You can't accept that I feel these two legal drugs have different characteristics than narcotics.

What you FEEL is irrelevant to proper public policy; the politics of feeling is quintessential liberalism.

[MrLeRoy]

"Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others."

meth cooks plying their trade near other homes creates severe environmental hazards for others.

OK, I may have overstated my case; some forms of drug manufacture may in some circumstances violate the rights of others, and those should be banned---meth-making (if there was a market for it in a world of legal drugs) should take place in zoned areas and with proper safety measures.

With that asterisk in place, my statement remains sound.

For citizens to have the right to do whatever they want is a good intention,but in this case the realitys would be grim.

The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim.

"So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws."

Until a majority of citizens feel the same way you do about the issue,or the supreme court rules against the WOD,how is this situation going to change?

It won't---that's why I'm on a public forum arguing for freedom.

Maybe if the supreme court somehow upholds the rights of the states to govern themselves this could have implications for all illicit drugs. Is this true of false?

True, I suppose---but I'm not holding my breath.

"Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none."

It would seem to me until the supreme court unsurps the power of the feds to enforce drug laws that are unconstitutional,how is the situation going to change?

It won't. What's your point---that we should give up on our Constitution?

" Tyranny of the majority is tyranny."

Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional.

Not only then, but in all cases.

Natural law is hard to define as I see it.

I already defined it for you.

"You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen)."

You can honestly assert that the number of alcohol poinsoning deaths is comparable to the number of narcotics OD's.

I have no idea; do you have any data on this point?

to OD on booze,you've gotta drink a hell of a lot and this is much different than a substance where a few extra cc's could stop breathing.

If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD.

"Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.

"Still waiting for evidence .... "

Addiction cycles,widespread use leading to OD's,curious non-users experimenting,

All true of alcohol.

violent behavior,

"Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner." (U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service, publication NCJ 145534)

You tell me how the use of MDMA and crack would be of benefit to someone

It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them. How is eating Cheetos while watching action movies "beneficial"?

I know meth use results in violent behavior,you assert it does not.

Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?

Would it be worth chaos to claim another right?

If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs; certain states would move faster than others, letting the rest see the effects---that's the "laboratory of democracy" that is one of the benefits of states' rights.

"So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?"

What about state laws? If the federal goverment suddenly bowed out of the WOD would you be happy adhereing to state drug laws?

No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer and would continue arguing that to my fellow Illinoisans---but an end to the feds' unconstitutional activities would be a significant step in the right direction.

"nobody I know is itching to start using heroin."

You have to understand the way people end up trying and using heroin.Many people are curious about it.The usage of it by teens

I'm discussing the rights---and behaviors---of ADULTS.

went way up in the last ten years

Provide evidence for your claim.

because the idea that it was fairly safe was put in their heads by others who were using .

More so than in the years before that? Provide evidence for your claim.

Over the past several years there has been a problem with youngsters ODing on a combination of junk and alcohol.Dropping like flys as they did'nt realise the combination of the two is sneaky and lethal.

This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled.

"My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage."

OK-how does that support your point? What if the neighbors happen to be visiting?

The law does not and should not restrict our freedoms on our own property for the sake of hypothetical visitors. It's a civil matter if A visits B's property and is harmed.

How can a law prevent people from possessing dynamite assuming they are going to let it get old and explosive,or that they will allow it to come in contact with static electricity and explode?

The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances.

"What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business."

That figure was obviously thrown in to get the point across.

It failed---what was your point?

Who are you to make a judgement on how close is too close though?

Since Joe's making (with the above caveats), distributing, selling, buying, or using drugs violates nobody's rights, Joe's skin defines the distance beyond which it's nobody's business.

"No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."

Air is a big stretch-

Support your claim.

You did'nt actually refute the fact that these people had been using drugs prior to the visit.

You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit.

Why don't you just admit drugs are dangerous

Why don't you just admit air is dangerous?

"I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks."

And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths,

Yup---not government's business.

drugs getting into the hands of teens and children,

We risk that with alcohol now.

potential violent behaviors,

We risk that with alcohol now---MORE so than with many illegal drugs.

increased divorce rate and family problems,

Yup---not government's business.

kids getting the idea that since drugs are legal,they must be safe,

We risk that with alcohol and tobacco now.

as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

[Rocksalt]

"proper safety measures"

Nothing about meth is safe-And virtually nothing about narcotics use is either.In theory the usage of narcotics does not infringe upon the rights of others.But in practice it does have a profound effect on familys and others on the perimeter.Saying it does not effect the rights of others discounts your "natural laws" which would say we have the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happyness,and others would be deprived of this.

"The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim."

True-Tobbacco and alcohol are legal now though,and I'm not advocating prohibiting these substances again.I am entitled to my opinion that they are different animals,and this is my basis for separating the two issues.

"It won't---that's why I'm on a public forum arguing for freedom."

You have some good arguments.Keep using your first amendment rights.You have refreshed me on some of the arguments surrounding this issue.
Keep an eye on that medical pot issue-that would seem to be a bellweather for all drugs,and the rights of individual states to govern themselves.I'm not holding my breath either.

"What's your point---that we should give up on our Constitution?"

No,I was just pointing out the realitys of what you're up against.I think if the medical pot laws in California,Oregon and other states are upheld,you might be in alot better shape on this.If legalized drugs would have passed in Arizona,the supreme court would have likely been addressing the issue already.

"Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional."(me)

"Not only then, but in all cases."

Where does a vote of the people fit into this I'm curious?

"I already defined it for you."(natural law)

I know that-but you are just one person and there could be many different interpretations of this concept.Envioro-greens could have a hayday with natural law it would seem.

"I have no idea; do you have any data on this point?(alcohol poisonings)

No-I had trouble turning up any statistics on this.Therefore I won't push this point,but my hunch is that there are far fewer alcohol poisoning deaths than narcotics OD's.

"If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD."

If used in the proper quantitys,this is true.Tolerance is a hard thing to gauge though.And addicts have a tendency to red-line it,trying to achieve strong effect and get really high.This is what makes it dangerous.Most addicts are poly-drug users too,and I have no statistics on this,but that is an important point.There are alot of "garbage heads" out there who will put anything in their bodies and actively seek to.

"Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."

There are a great number of "anecdotal reports" exsisting,thats all I can say about this.PCP may not "stimulate" violent behavior,but as anyone who has been around users of this substance knows,when it takes 6 cops to control a PCP freak,there's some kind of connection involved.I would never in a million years advocate that substance being legal for public use.

"It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them"

No,but it should be you duty to reason the benefits against the dangers and effects of all this.Common sense,as well as legal sense.

"Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?"

This would indicate that report gets the gong.Meth,PCP,Crack,all cause violent tendencys,take it from me-my time on the streets of big citys has made me well aware of that.

"If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs;"

I am assuming this is true-Would a vote of the people on the issue be appropriate? I would say yes.And it may be the case that no state would legalize narcotics.As you ahve pointed out,there are many reasons to legalize,and as I have pointed out,there are some good reasons not to as well.

"No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer"

Some thruth to this-but I think it's all about freedom-vs.-safety.

"I'm discussing the rights---and behaviors---of ADULTS."(heroin use by teens)

I would have to access microfilm records to get it,but there were several newspaper articles locally here that talked about the rise in teen deaths due to heroin use.I know you are talking about adult use.Are you saying that legal heroin would not make it into the hands of teens?You give "adults" too much credit,assuming they would act responsibly.

"This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled."

Then why do people keep combining prescription drugs and alcohol.Could it be there are alot of stupid people who don't respect drugs out there?

"The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances."

So this is an assumption that they could possibly handle it improperly.I'm just trying to draw a correlation between this and reasonable measures to protect people from the harm of narcotics.Seems about the same approach to me.

"It failed---what was your point?"

My point obviously was that a majority of people would likely not want Abdul's operation to even exsist anywhere.

"You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit."

Why should I have to-obviously they were.But the statistics I cited were not about air related visits.You know this.And this particular statistic made alot more sense to me than the findings that claimed no correlation between drugs and violence I might add.

"And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths",

"Yup---not government's business."

OK-I'm glad to hear that.Are you saying it is not the goverment's business to protect children from any potential harms that might result from this? Many people would say they should have an interest in doing so.

"drugs getting into the hands of teens and children"(mine),

"We risk that with alcohol now."

Different animal argument again.You know my attitude on this.

"increased divorce rate and family problems,

Yup---not government's business."

This is a callous attitude.This is the reason I'm asking you is this a freedom we would really desire?

"as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked."(mine)

"I don't understand what you're asking here."

Let me rephrase-I would not favor the experiment and it's likely results,but I am curious what the results would be if society felt the risks were worth the freedoms.

[Rocksalt]

"It lends credence to your point only if people are buying powder cocaine and making their own crack; how "common" is that?"

Where do you think it all comes from ace? Any kid on the streets of Oakland knows how to walk to the store and purchase some baking soda,and how easy it is to cook the stuff.COMMON.

"sigh> Do you understand that when your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom?"

Freedom to use drugs and freedom for others from the impacts of the drug users should go together.Under your vision they will not,no matter how much you would like to think there are many potential responsible users out there.

"What you FEEL is irrelevant to proper public policy; the politics of feeling is quintessential liberalism."

Conservative thought also includes reason.You deny the potential impacts of what you advocate.

[MrLeRoy]

"It lends credence to your point only if people are buying powder cocaine and making their own crack; how "common" is that?"

Where do you think it all comes from ace?

Dealers.

Any kid on the streets of Oakland knows how to walk to the store and purchase some baking soda,and how easy it is to cook the stuff.

Provide evidence for your claim.

"Do you understand that when your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom?"

freedom for others from the impacts of the drug users

There is no such "freedom"---not for alcohol, not for tobacco, and not for any other drug. Inventing "freedoms" that restrict genuine rights is quintessential liberalism.

"What you FEEL is irrelevant to proper public policy; the politics of feeling is quintessential liberalism."

Conservative thought also includes reason.You deny the potential impacts of what you advocate.

I provide facts and logic for my denials, not just feelings.

[MrLeRoy]

"proper safety measures"

Nothing about meth is safe-And virtually nothing about narcotics use is either.

Quit changing the subject---you were discussing manufacturing hazards.

In theory the usage of narcotics does not infringe upon the rights of others.But in practice it does have a profound effect on familys and others on the perimeter.

Those "effects" are not violations of rights; hence, they are none of the government's business.

Saying it does not effect the rights of others discounts your "natural laws" which would say we have the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happyness,and others would be deprived of this.

Nonsense; Joe's drug use deprives nobody else of their natural rights.

"The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim."

True-Tobbacco and alcohol are legal now though,and I'm not advocating prohibiting these substances again.I am entitled to my opinion that they are different animals

An opinion for which you have offered no evidence.

"Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional."(me)

"Not only then, but in all cases."

Where does a vote of the people fit into this I'm curious?

The people have no right to vote away the freedoms of individuals.

"I already defined it for you."(natural law)

I know that-but you are just one person and there could be many different interpretations of this concept.Envioro-greens could have a hayday with natural law it would seem.

The opinion of a majority is no less subjective than the opinion of a minority.

"If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD."

If used in the proper quantitys,this is true.Tolerance is a hard thing to gauge though.

It doesn't change much from one use to the next, so that couldn't cause ODs.

And addicts have a tendency to red-line it,trying to achieve strong effect and get really high.

This is relevant to ODs only if a lethal amount is only slightly greater than a "really high" amount. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

This is what makes it dangerous.Most addicts are poly-drug users too,and I have no statistics on this,but that is an important point.

Why is that important? Alcohol is dangerous in combination with many other legal drugs; does that mean that alcohol, or those other legal drugs, should be banned?

"Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."

There are a great number of "anecdotal reports" exsisting,thats all I can say about this.

Anecdotal reports do not take into account the user's pre-existing mental condition---or his alcohol use.

"It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them"

No

I'm glad you agree.

"Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?"

This would indicate that report gets the gong.

False. The drugs mentioned by the report were well known.

Meth,PCP,Crack,all cause violent tendencys,take it from me-my time on the streets of big citys has made me well aware of that.

You are considerably less of an authority than the US Department of Justice; any rational person will take their research-based word over yours.

"If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs;"

I am assuming this is true

Then why were you talking about "chaos"?

"No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer"

Some thruth to this-but I think it's all about freedom-vs.-safety.

Joe's drug use, like his alcohol use, does not in and of itself threaten anyone else's safety.

Are you saying that legal heroin would not make it into the hands of teens?

It would most probably become less available to teens than it is now, since sellers would have a new economic incentive to not sell to teens---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult market.

"This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled."

Then why do people keep combining prescription drugs and alcohol.Could it be there are alot of stupid people who don't respect drugs out there?

Yes, there are---but labeling protects the many people that aren't that stupid, whereas banning drugs has not protected anyone.

"The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances."

So this is an assumption that they could possibly handle it improperly.I'm just trying to draw a correlation between this and reasonable measures to protect people from the harm of narcotics.Seems about the same approach to me.

An outright ban on drugs is VERY FAR FROM "about the same approach."

"It failed---what was your point?"

My point obviously was that a majority of people would likely not want Abdul's operation to even exsist anywhere.

So what?

"You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit."

Why should I have to-obviously they were.But the statistics I cited were not about air related visits.You know this.

I've already explained this (and you deleted the explanation): 'in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."'

And this particular statistic made alot more sense to me than the findings that claimed no correlation between drugs and violence I might add.

You mean it better fit your preconceptions.

"And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths",

"Yup---not government's business."

OK-I'm glad to hear that.Are you saying it is not the goverment's business to protect children from any potential harms that might result from this? Many people would say they should have an interest in doing so.

Children should be protected---as a ban on drugs for adults has failed to do.

"drugs getting into the hands of teens and children"(mine),

"We risk that with alcohol now."

Different animal argument again.

No evidence from you again.

"increased divorce rate and family problems,

Yup---not government's business."

This is a callous attitude.

That is quintessential liberal rhetoric.

This is the reason I'm asking you is this a freedom we would really desire?

Those who don't desire that freedom may simply refrain from exercising it.

"as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked."(mine)

"I don't understand what you're asking here."

Let me rephrase-I would not favor the experiment and it's likely results,but I am curious what the results would be if society felt the risks were worth the freedoms.

Society has no business restricting the risks that individuals impose on themselves. As to the results of legalizing drugs for adults, they would include a decrease or end to the following: innocents killed in drug-turf wars; user deaths due to contaminants and unexpectedly high purities; inflated prices that motivate crimes by users (whereas winos can get their next fix by collecting cans or panhandling); enriched criminals; and corruption of the justice system by criminals' riches.

[Rocksalt]

"Society has no business restricting the risks that individuals impose on themselves. As to the results of legalizing drugs for adults, they would include a decrease or end to the following: innocents killed in drug-turf wars; user deaths due to contaminants and unexpectedly high purities; inflated prices that motivate crimes by users (whereas winos can get their next fix by collecting cans or panhandling); enriched criminals; and corruption of the justice system by criminals' riches."

All I want to say is you are likely right with much of your logic,there would be many benefits to legalized narcotics,but these projected benefits should be carefully weighed against potential problems.The situation as it exists is not good,drugs are reaching the hands of minors frequently.If a way was found to administer a system of legalized drugs that involved some real motivations for people to not use,that might work.I feel it would offer curious people an even easier means to aquire these poisons.This is the main drawback as I see it.We all wish the drug menace would just vanish suddenly,but we know it never will.Should we condone drug use in any way? Should we call it legal and give people the right to possess and use and say "well it's legal"? You have heard my logic,or illogic as you feel,You know I feel I'm not quite ready for a society where people can merely walk into a corner store and purchase Heroin,Crack,PCP,Speed,etc. I realize you have many good points along the way,and I'll just leave it at that.

[MrLeRoy]

these projected benefits should be carefully weighed against potential problems.

False. Unless these potential problems are violations of rights---which they are not---they are none of government's business.

[Rocksalt]

Regardless of what you say I think the US goverment has an interest in protecting citizens.If people can do their drugs,behave themselves in their own home-great.Obviously some people have their doubts about the reality of that,or it would have been obvious a legal drug plan would work smoothly and the WOD would have already ceased.I think the US constitution is the best basis for our laws-isn't interpretation of it based on factors such as how the interpretation in each case will impact citizens and others? Rights are weighed against impacts?

[MrLeRoy]

I think the US constitution is the best basis for our laws-isn't interpretation of it based on factors such as how the interpretation in each case will impact citizens and others? Rights are weighed against impacts?

Only in the post-FDR era, when the courts have no respect for the plain language of the Constitution. No true conservative can support that.

[cinFLA]

No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body.

Which is it? Ethics or constitution? Feds or states rights? Libertarians bounce all over on these issues.

[MrLeRoy]

Libertarians bounce all over on these issues.

No, libertarians address both Constitutional and ethical issues; the text you quoted addresses an ethical issue.

(By the way, I'm flattered by your attentions---and pleased that you're keeping WOD threads, even old ones like this, bumped to the top.)