Regulation of Drugs

[Wolf DeVoon]

George, drug dealers don't hang around on street corners waiting to be approached by strangers who want to try it for the first time. Likewise, the few hookers who stand on street corners waiting to be approached by strangers usually get hauled away by undercover cops.

I think Bob's on to an important idea about impairment. Think about Elliot Spitzer for instance, impaired by his colossal vanity and special badge of unearned privilege. Or Bill Clinton, above the law and nothing better to do in the Oval Office during business hours than play with wet cigars.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[sjw]

George, if "civility" means that we can't call a spade a spade ... then it is a useless concept in debate.

Not here at OL. We are guests of an owner who has apparently placed the condition on us of being civil. If you refuse to abide by the owner's conditions yet continue to be a guest, you are not being entirely respectful of the owner's property rights.

That's like a farmer inviting you onto his land with the condition that you not pull out his carrots. And then you pull out his carrots.

No, it's like someone posting inconsistent and/or vague rules and claiming that you break them without specifying how while letting others break them left and right.

E.g., see Brant's last post to me, would you call that "civil" by your woozy definition?

Edit: Michael is free to ask me to leave at any time, if he thought I was "stealing carrots", then he should have by now. So your insulting analogy is obviously way over the top. And uncivil by your own definition. But if I call you a hypocrite, everyone will pile on me, even though I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Shayne

Edited April 17, 2008 by sjw

[sjw]

George calls me a thief without using the word "thief". Is this the OL definition of "civil"? To call people things without using the real word for the thing? I call that passive-aggressive behavior.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

argument: a process of reasoning; series of reasons.

You claim a strong argument but all you have is questions and some assertions without supporting reasons.

How is the drug dealer "exploiting" you if you, an adult, approach him offering to buy what he sells?

That's like saying the corner grocer exploits you because you just must have the coffee or beer or wine or grain alcohol or cigarettes he sells.

Or maybe the prostitute exploits you because you just gotta have what she is offering for sale. It's a natural urge after all. You can hardly be blamed.

Right?

"You claim a strong argument but all you have is questions"

That you haven't answered.

Impairment is on a continuum, so every case has it's own characteristics. Addictions to powerful drugs is an extreme case. Urges are hardly impairments, that's a foolish example.

But back to the questions, I'm perfectly willing to discuss, but not if you refuse to answer the central questions.

____________

Questions:

Do you think we should be protected from exploitation while mentally or physically impaired or not? It seems, but I could be wrong, that you're saying that it depends why you're impaired. But please clarify if that's not the case.

So it matters what the product is? How about cocaine?

_______________

"That's like saying the corner grocer exploits you because you just must have the coffee or beer or wine or grain alcohol or cigarettes he sells."

Absolutely. The manufacturers and retailers indeed share responsibility, but depending on a number of issues

- Merits vs danger of product (is there benefits or just dangers/risk)

- addiction potential

- addiction status of the purchaser

among other things I'm sure.

And to be perfectly clear, I do not absolve the responsibility of the user, but assert that there's shared responsibilty when impairment/addiction is involved.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[georgedonnelly]

sjw: I did not use the word steal, nor did I imply thievery in any way. Clearly you did not take the time to read what I actually wrote before jumping to extreme conclusions. "Pull out carrots" does NOT equal "stealing carrots", not even remotely.

Furthermore, you put the phrase stealing carrots in quotes, suggesting it as a direct quotation from me, which it is not. Who is being dishonest now?

My definition of civility comes from the dictionary. Yours comes from your imagination, which you attempt to pass off as reality. Which of those may be deemed "woozy" you are able to decide for yourself.

Bob_Mac: I am under no obligations to answer your questions. You claimed you had a strong argument. I am still waiting to hear it. Once I hear your alleged argument, I will be able to respond to it.

You say addictions to powerful drugs constitute an impairment. Well what do you call alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? And what does an addiction cause but a powerful urge?

wooz·y

1. Dazed or confused.

2. Dizzy or queasy.

[sjw]

Who is being dishonest now?

You're being intellectually dishonest in a variety of ways. Next question?

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

Who is being dishonest now?

You're being intellectually dishonest in a variety of ways.

I substantiated my claim. It is plainly visible to any reader. You have not. These facts alone speak for themselves.

[bmacwilliam]

Bob_Mac: I am under no obligations to answer your questions. You claimed you had a strong argument. I am still waiting to hear it. Once I hear your alleged argument, I will be able to respond to it.

The strong argument simply comes from if you believe that a person's right to life includes protection from being preyed upon when impaired - or not. I think it's a false dichotomy between initiation of force and addiction, when the drug dealer holds a coercive power over the junkie. And the question is not whether a person has a right to destroy one's own life, the question is whether another individual has the right to profit from another's impaired choices.

It's a strong link between prosecution of drug dealers and a person's right to life. Like I said it's simple. If you disagree then fine.

"I am under no obligations to answer your questions."

Are you uncomfortable with your answers? Pretty simple questions...

[sjw]

Who is being dishonest now?

You're being intellectually dishonest in a variety of ways.

I substantiated my claim. It is plainly visible to any reader. You have not. These facts alone speak for themselves.

Actually you were just rationalizing and further being a hypocrite about your alleged "civility". Which is plainly visibile to any intelligent reader.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

if you believe that a person's right to life includes protection from being preyed upon when impaired - or not.

How do you define "impaired" and "being preyed upon"?

impaired: functioning poorly or inadequately

If I'm drunk and, at my request, someone sells me more alcohol, I see no rights violations.

I think it's a false dichotomy between initiation of force and addiction, when the drug dealer holds a coercive power over the junkie.

Just because the 7-11 sells vodka and I'm an addict does not mean the clerk is coercing me into buying it. I, addict or not, have the ability to choose between continuing my addiction or seeking treatment to end it.

And the question is not whether a person has a right to destroy one's own life, the question is whether another individual has the right to profit from another's impaired choices.

Too vague for me to comment on much.

There is no "right to profit" from anything. There is a right to produce and trade voluntarily.

"I am under no obligations to answer your questions."

Are you uncomfortable with your answers? Pretty simple questions...

You're baiting me. That's rather juvenile.

[georgedonnelly]

sjw you passed something off as a quote from me. It is not. That is plain, factual dishonesty. I'm using your term.

This reminds me of the time you claimed Ayn Rand said Objectivism was a religion. That's two times now where I have witnessed you presenting factually false statements, without being able to issue a correction.

[bmacwilliam]

if you believe that a person's right to life includes protection from being preyed upon when impaired - or not.

How do you define "impaired" and "being preyed upon"?

impaired: functioning poorly or inadequately

If I'm drunk and, at my request, someone sells me more alcohol, I see no rights violations.

I think it's a false dichotomy between initiation of force and addiction, when the drug dealer holds a coercive power over the junkie.

Just because the 7-11 sells vodka and I'm an addict does not mean the clerk is coercing me into buying it. I, addict or not, have the ability to choose between continuing my addiction or seeking treatment to end it.

And the question is not whether a person has a right to destroy one's own life, the question is whether another individual has the right to profit from another's impaired choices.

Too vague for me to comment on much.

"right to profit" probably isn't the best choice of words. But I think you know exactly what I mean. Vague? Hardly.

Alcohol is in a special category but that aside, what about selling it to a 10-year-old kid?

There is no "right to profit" from anything. There is a right to produce and trade voluntarily.

"I am under no obligations to answer your questions."

Are you uncomfortable with your answers? Pretty simple questions...

You're baiting me. That's rather juvenile.

I think you refuse to answer the pertinent questions because your position is untenable. If this isn't the case, then answer.

[georgedonnelly]

You mix unsupported assertions with overly aggressive challenges. Your argument is a moving target full of question marks. I reply simply to say that silence does not mean consent.

This thread got tiresome a long time ago and you are taking it to its logical conclusion.

[sjw]

sjw you passed something off as a quote from me. It is not. That is plain, factual dishonesty. I'm using your term.

This reminds me of the time you claimed Ayn Rand said Objectivism was a religion. That's two times now where I have witnessed you presenting factually false statements, without being able to issue a correction.

You accuse me of something and then do far worse to me. You are a total hypocrite. I never said AR literally said that. You are totally dropping context.

[Mike Renzulli]

I propose that individuals who use dangerous drugs in violation of the law not be penalized, but that it remain illegal to produce and sell dangerous, addictive drugs. Meth factories would continue to be illegal, but if an individual uses the substance, he will not be jailed or fined for doing so. Yes, you have a right to poison yourself if you wish, but you do not have a right to to harm others by selling substances which kill and which create physical dependence. I would add that the notion that people must be free to choose what they wish to ingest or inhale is oversimplified when applied to substances which create addiction. The heroin addict has lost much of his ability to choose; by definition he has a powerful urge to shoot up. He can refrain, but only with great effort and suffering.

I believe that allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. You cannot totally prevent the production, importation, and sale of narcotics, for example, but legal sanctions can greatly reduce these activities.

Howard Hood

Howard,

We have meth and other dangerous drugs as a result of prohibition of drugs. When alcohol was illegal many dangeous, home made alcoholic drinks were produced resulting in many deaths associated with their use.

Once the 18th Amendment was abolished home made drinks (like moonshine) vanished.

If narcotics, like meth, were legal they would also go by the wayside too.

As to your legal sanctions argument, it can also result in social engineering and violation of private property via the courts similar to how the socialists are using them against fast food restaurants and gun manufacturers.

Smoking is dangerous but the science behind second hand smoke is hogwash. Even still, let property owners and not politicians and bureaucrats what smoking policies restaurants and bars should have.

[georgedonnelly]

This reminds me of the time you claimed Ayn Rand said Objectivism was a religion. That's two times now where I have witnessed you presenting factually false statements, without being able to issue a correction.

... I never said AR literally said that. You are totally dropping context.

Here is your context: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry46333

You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist.

You're mistaken. To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own. It's a religion. That's how she defined it, see what she wrote at the beginning of "The Objectivist Forum".

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

You mix unsupported assertions with overly aggressive challenges. Your argument is a moving target full of question marks. I reply simply to say that silence does not mean consent.

This thread got tiresome a long time ago and you are taking it to its logical conclusion.

Fine, done. But I think it's a little more than a coincidence that you find it 'tiresome' as soon as I insist you answer simple, basic questions and you refuse.

[bmacwilliam]

I propose that individuals who use dangerous drugs in violation of the law not be penalized, but that it remain illegal to produce and sell dangerous, addictive drugs. Meth factories would continue to be illegal, but if an individual uses the substance, he will not be jailed or fined for doing so. Yes, you have a right to poison yourself if you wish, but you do not have a right to to harm others by selling substances which kill and which create physical dependence. I would add that the notion that people must be free to choose what they wish to ingest or inhale is oversimplified when applied to substances which create addiction. The heroin addict has lost much of his ability to choose; by definition he has a powerful urge to shoot up. He can refrain, but only with great effort and suffering.

I believe that allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. You cannot totally prevent the production, importation, and sale of narcotics, for example, but legal sanctions can greatly reduce these activities.

Howard Hood

Howard,

We have meth and other dangerous drugs as a result of prohibition of drugs. When alcohol was illegal many dangeous, home made alcoholic drinks were produced resulting in many deaths associated with their use.

Once the 18th Amendment was abolished home made drinks (like moonshine) vanished.

If narcotics, like meth, were legal they would also go by the wayside too.

As to your legal sanctions argument, it can also result in social engineering and violation of private property via the courts similar to how the socialists are using them against fast food restaurants and gun manufacturers.

Smoking is dangerous but the science behind second hand smoke is hogwash. Even still, let property owners and not politicians and bureaucrats what smoking policies restaurants and bars should have.

"If narcotics, like meth, were legal they would also go by the wayside too."

Really, I'd like to hear this line of reasoning.

"the science second hand smoke is hogwash"

Maybe, in 1972, but now there's lots of data

"1: Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2008 Mar;84(1):54-60. Links

Detrimental effects of tobacco smoke exposure during development on postnatal lung function and asthma.Wang L, Pinkerton KE.

Center for Health and the Environment, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA.

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) during fetal development and early postnatal life is perhaps the most ubiquitous and hazardous of children's environmental exposures. The developing lung is highly susceptible to ETS. A large body of literature links both prenatal maternal smoking and children's ETS exposure to decreased lung growth. "

I'm guessing the evil socialist anti-tobacco kooks are responsible for the conspiracy against second hand smoke?

Bob

Edited April 17, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you think we should be protected from exploitation while mentally or physically impaired or not? Strong simple question, strong simple argument.

I think you're saying it depends on how the impairment happened. I say it doesn't matter.

Bob,

I just caught up to this thread and I am sorry to see an important idea get buried under rapid-fire personal jabs of few.

You ask an extremely important question and it is germane to my inquiry about the rights of children.

What are the rights of the mentally impaired or mentally undeveloped? I agree that sane adults who expoit them and induce them to loss or damage are violating something fundamental in human values. I have been trying to put my finger on it for some time (in addition to some other aspects).

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Do you think we should be protected from exploitation while mentally or physically impaired or not? Strong simple question, strong simple argument.

I think you're saying it depends on how the impairment happened. I say it doesn't matter.

Bob,

I just caught up to this thread and I am sorry to see an important idea get buried under rapid-fire personal jabs of few.

You ask an extremely important question and it is germane to my inquiry about the rights of children.

What are the rights of the mentally impaired or mentally undeveloped? I agree that sane adults who expoit them and induce them to loss or damage are violating something fundamental in human values. I have been trying to put my finger on it for some time (in addition to some other aspects).

Michael

Keep me posted on your thoughts on this one.

"I agree that sane adults who expoit them and induce them to loss or damage are violating something fundamental in human values."

Of course, I agree. Most certainly a violation here. I think maybe it's a simple extension of a violation of the right to life perhaps combined with initiation of force in a more subtle, less direct way.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I need to check, but isn't alcohol regulated by the government for strength? Aren't there limits set on proof for being allowed to be sold to consumers?

So long as that exists, there is no way an argument for releasing meth or crack or heroin to the general public will have any effect at all. A fundamental principle cannot be argued for an illegal substance, then compared to a legal substance where it is violated. That's a contradiction and shooing oneself in the foot.

In any case, how would one regulate crystal meth for strength? When you start using that crap, you always shoot for maximum effect. Nobody does just a little (at least not for very long). They only use little because they don't have enough money or drug, hardly ever because they only want a little (like a cocktail befere supper).

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Mike,

I need to check, but isn't alcohol regulated by the government for strength? Aren't there limits set on proof for being allowed to be sold to consumers?

So long as that exists, there is no way an argument for releasing meth or crack or heroin to the general public will have any effect at all. A fundamental principle cannot be argued for an illegal substance, then compared to a legal substance where it is violated. That's a contradiction and shooing oneself in the foot.

In any case, how would one regulate crystal meth for strength? When you start using that crap, you always shoot for maximum effect. Nobody does just a little (at least not for very long). They only use little because they don't have enough money or drug, hardly ever because they only want a little (like a cocktail befere supper).

Michael

Well, tobacco is legal and people don't smoke anymore...

People don't do other hard drugs in Amsterdam...

Hmmm....

[tjohnson]

In any case, how would one regulate crystal meth for strength? When you start using that crap, you always shoot for maximum effect. Nobody does just a little (at least not for very long). They only use little because they don't have enough money or drug, hardly ever because they only want a little (like a cocktail befere supper).

In the words of Drew Carry, "there's no such thing as a small crack problem"

[tjohnson]

All this talk about "rights". When the Jews were rounded up and gassed by the Nazis what happened to their "right to life"? "Rights" are not things, they are social constructs and when your society changes so do your rights. If you happen to have them, great, take full advantage of them. When you lose them, take steps to protect yourself. The worst thing you can do is go around thinking you have rights up to the minute you discover that you don't. Then you're in deep shit.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Mike,

I need to check, but isn't alcohol regulated by the government for strength? Aren't there limits set on proof for being allowed to be sold to consumers?

Note: alcohol and narcotics regulation began as tax/revenue-generating proposals, not public health/police power issues.

W.