"There is NO governmental solution to the problem of adults harming themselves with bad choices, as the history of Prohibition proves. So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin
Yup.
you believe this would be a road to increased personal freedoms
BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom.
The history of prohibition does not necessarily equate with the WOD.
They were initiated with the same arguments, and had the same evil effects. If you want to argue a significant difference, the burden is on you to provide evidence.
Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.
So what?
"Unlike liberal Democrats and phony "conservatives," I take a consistent stand for individual freedom. "Conservatives" who support individual freedom only when it suits them are phonies."
How come so many conservatives are against the legalization of drugs then? You can't tell me every conservative who is against drug legalization is a phony.
They're either phonies or they haven't thought it through.
You refuse to admit
I don't refuse to admit any truths. (I do reject some anti-drug-freedom hysteria posing as truth.)
or simply want to accept some of the realitys that would be created if everyone was permitted access.
Yes, just as we all accept the realities created by legal alcohol and tobacco.
"As I've pointed out several times and you have never rebutted, what I advocate is not a mere trade but a LESSENING of goverment control."
But you would permit the goverment and/or private industry to profit off of drugs.I can't accept that.
You accept it right now---private industry profits off of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. (Or do you support changing that?)
My office is in a downtown area where we do oftentimes have to deal with nasty drunks.
I don't see that as "rampant" alcoholism; perhaps you do. Should we ban alcohol to end that problem? If not, why not?
"Are you seriously claiming that this is a problem with the LEGALITY of tobacco and alcohol?! That's just comical."
I'm saying the goverment should not have the ability to tax my tobbacco and booze.
Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?
Refer back to your post #66. You cite a report that claims drugs such as PCP do not cause any more propensity for violence than alcohol. [...] any study claiming that PCP is no more dangerous than alcohol is seriously skewed.
So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?
"Observations "out in the street" are neither randomly selected nor comparable against a control group, so they prove LESS about general conclusions than scientific observations do."
OK-how about when a study proports to be subjective,but is actually quite biased.
The burden is on the study's critics to prove bias (as critics of recent anti-Ecstasy studies have proved). You can't just say 'I don't like that study's conclusions so it must be biased.'
"You claimed that people should be allowed to kill dealers of legalized narcotics, and you agree that alcohol is also a harmful substance, so the logical consequence is that people should be allowed to kill dealers of alcohol."
I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol.
It's the logical consequence of what you have claimed.
"So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin"
"Yup."
That scares me-but you know that.
"BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom."
But it might be a little more freedom than many can handle.
"The history of prohibition does not necessarily equate with the WOD.
They were initiated with the same arguments, and had the same evil effects. If you want to argue a significant difference, the burden is on you to provide evidence."
True there are many valid comparisons between the two.My intuition tells me there would be quite a bit of difference in the actual effects of easy access to narcotics and I have already made my concerns about the addictive propertys of narcotics.I totally agree with you that there would be many benefits to legalization.But I feel the side effects would be a nightmare and have MANY hidden drains on society.
"Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.
So what?"
Goverment control ok with you? What happened to true freedom?
"How come so many conservatives are against the legalization of drugs then? You can't tell me every conservative who is against drug legalization is a phony."
"They're either phonies or they haven't thought it through"
You are certainly entitled to your opinion,but it just might be that many don't feel full-on legalization is wise,or that other's freedoms would be infringed upon as a result.
"we all accept the realities created by legal alcohol and tobacco."
And some of the realitys are not that great.Some of the realitys of dope use might be much worse(my personal feeling)do we need a legal "needle park" in every town?
"You accept it right now---private industry profits off of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. (Or do you support changing that?)
Change it-I've already taken matters into my own hands and brewed homebrew. I've seen people growing tobbacco in the past too,and it's not hard.It's not that I mind somebody profiting off the stuff,I just don't like the goverment control aspects.
"I don't see that as "rampant" alcoholism; perhaps you do. Should we ban alcohol to end that problem? If not, why not?"
Come on,you know and I know there's a hell of a lot of alcoholics out there in the US and they are a real vailid problem.No,we should not ban alcohol,I feel the current situation is tolerable.You might be right,it might be tolerable with drugs too,but as I have said before,the potential for people to O.D. is alot higher with narcotics. I'm taking this into account.
"Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?"
My ideal would obviously be to have no taxes. I suffer through them because I realise our infrastuctures would collapse without them.But I prefer the least amount of taxes to the maximum amount generally.
"So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?"
No-there are many dangerous aspects to narcotics.You and I both know that.
"The burden is on the study's critics to prove bias (as critics of recent anti-Ecstasy studies have proved). You can't just say 'I don't like that study's conclusions so it must be biased."
Short on time at the moment,but when I have time I will read it thoroughly and give you my opinion on this.
"I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol."
"It's the logical consequence of what you have claimed."
Never said that but still think it might be a very effective control for narcotics dealers who prey on communitys.