[MrLeRoy]

"Who is a majority to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?

Sounds a lot better than a small body of select individuals like the supreme court.

But much worse than letting adults decide for themselves. (Why did you drag in this red herring--when did I ever support letting the Supreme Court decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?)

I'm sure you have a basis for your feelings that the constitution entitles us to do drugs.

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs.

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?"

Laws exist in virtually every state and municipality that prohibit public drunkedness,DUII,and drinking in public.

The public gets to say what happens on its property. If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?

"Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief."

Never said they were unbiased.

Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."

"We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements."

Who is we? Supreme court,vote of American people,city councils,state goverment,elected officials?

All of the above.

Cite constitutional provisions-

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements. As for the rest, it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do.

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

Conservatives do generally argue with sound facts

And the sound facts do not support restricting adults' freedom to use drugs.

but in this particular case I feel in spite of the information you cite,somehow you end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization.

So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?

"Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening."

Good point-my obvious reply would be narcotics can kill you in a single minute.Different animal all together.

No, that does NOT make them "different altogether." Slow-acting poisons and fast-acting poisons are both poisons.

"Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?

"Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail)."

after the first 14 year old girl OD's on your good,pure dope,tell me what you will tell her mother when she comes in to let you know the dope you sold to John ended up in Jill's body.Even though you are just like an alcohol store and can't control where it all goes,will you feel good about selling your product?

How would I feel about selling John a bottle of booze that killed Jill? How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?

"Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property."

What difference does that make

The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property.

"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?"

Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics?

No---and I doubt that's true on a per-user basis.

Tolerance sets in and it's hard to know how fast.

That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes.

"Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives."

Chuckling-Because I am biased admittedly,I enjoy a beer now and again.

I'd applaud your honesty---but I'm too disgusted by your chuckling over your supporting the caging of non-rights-violating adults on the basis of your biases.

My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals.

You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim.

[Rocksalt]

"Supreme Court?"

Who ends up making a goodly number of the decisions affecting our lives? I never said you supported the power of the supreme court to decide what you can put in your body.Who ends up interpreting the constitution? Not you or me.I'm saying I'd rather let a majority decide these decisions,including drug reform,than the supreme court jesters.

"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs."

How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?"

No-and I feel this should apply to drugs as well. I'm not going to try and mandate how much dope you can shoot in your own home.But I feel the distribution of narcotics should be as limited as possible due to many different concerns.

"Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."

I'm not going to dispute that oftentimes scientific findings are quite meaningful.Some of my own research is quite valid,meaningful and cutting edge data.I'm not proporting to be an expert on every kind of research,but I know enough to tell you much research done in this world is funded by someone,and often has specific intentions,which may add an element of bias.Make one set of findings,get more money,make another,lose funding.Besides,how can you dispute that I have psychic powers?

"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements. As for the rest, it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do."

Cite specifics if you could please.Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings,or Scalia?

"And the sound facts do not support restricting adults' freedom to use drugs."

I agree-but I would not support anyone being permitted to distribute narcotics,feds,private industry,or moon monkeys.Your black and white way of addressing this problem has led to myopia in that you ignore the big ugly picture drug use paints.If it was as simple as citizens simply possessing drugs in their own home,produced by themselves,it would be alot easier.That's the beauty of medical pot-anyone can grow it,and this is one of the reasons the drug company's and the feds hate the idea.They can't control it.If it was as simple as you sitting in your lazyboy snorting a line of coke and not affecting anyone,I'd say have a good time.You have the right to do anything you want with your own body-that's obvious.

"So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?"

The pants are fine.Lose the tye-died shirt though.(See-I'm starting to get this down-you might make a freeper out of me yet)

"Slow-acting poisons and fast-acting poisons are both poisons."

Yeah,but there's a big difference between black powder and nitro glycerine.Why should the federal goverment be able to restrict someone's rights to possess dynamite? Could it be potential harm? By your logic,fundamental ethics would permit virtually anything.

" How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?"

Because I'm interested in hearing your instincts and gut feelings about what you would be doing.Instead of seeing the issue in black and white terms,this will enable us to see if your moral fundamentals will allow you to sell the stuff.And you totally ducked the question........... That was question #1-number 2 is: If your permit gets denied for the narcotics store(since you have too many firearms around your house)are you happy that Abdul has opened up Abdul's House of Heroin next door to your house?

"The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property."

But why does it matter what arbitirary line is crossed if I'm not harming persons or property?

"Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics?"

"No---and I doubt that's true on a per-user basis."

I can't cite figures on how many people ODed on prescription drugs-don't quite a few bite the dust after combining prescription drugs and alcohol?

"That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes."

Not in a single episode-what I meant is over time it is difficult to judge how tolerant to a substance a person has become.

"My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals."

"You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim."

Guess I've got some homework to do to further my arguments ........I'm confident I can produce some data that suggests my assertions are true.