I've been called crass but I just can't get worked up about contaminated illicit drugs. I know that we're meant to feel sorry for people who might be harmed or killed by using "bad" heroin or cocaine or other drugs; I'm just not.

Exactly. The same way that if I am doing the speed limit on a winding road and a Hoon blasts past me, passes on a blind corner and is later found wrapped around a tree, it is I who is supposed to feel sorry for him and his family?. Also, those who smoke while filling up the car. Some people are simply tiptoeing blindfolded on the edge of a cliff. Let them I say. It might stop them from taking innocents with them.

"...laced with levamisole, which is used to treat worm infections in animals."

OMG! think of all the poor roundworm & tape worms that could be affected!

The irrational fear of certain drugs by the right always confused me.

Tobacco-Incredibly addictive, and kills half of the people that use it. Acceptable.

Alcohol-Incredibly debilitating, leads to all kinds of accidental deaths, and contributes significantly to social disfunction. Acceptable.

Pot-Mildly intoxicating, relatively harmless. Numerous useful side effects. Bad.

Cocaine-Quite addictive, mildly debilitating. Not particularly good for your heart. At high rates of use, it's quite dangerous. Bad.

My problem with this blanket drugs are bad approach, is that it leads to organized crime making billions of dollars a year.

Clearly, cocaine use isn't the best choice (esp crack), but criminalizing drugs that are on the same "badness" level as Alcohol and Tobacco is increasing social dysfunction. It creates criminals of users that would be otherwise regular members of society. The high cost of illegal drugs funds organized crime, and causes an addict to require large amounts of money to feed their habit. This often leads to crime.

Many addicts, with their drugs available safely, at a reasonable cost, would be functional members of society.

Adune as with most pot advocates you underplay the benefits of alcohol and the dangers of pot.

Do you sell the stuff you have and wait for fresh? Do you give yours to someone you don't like much? Do you do it anyway and ignore the public health warning? Too rigorous for me I think I'll stick to cookies.

Adune @ 11:24

I have no issue legalizing heroin, cocaine and other illegal drugs PROVIDED we allow people to fail. I.E. employers can fire drug addicted employees for being drug addicted, we allow them to die in the gutter and we do not cut them slack when they commit crimes when impaired by their drug of choice.

We are a long way from being there. When we as a society banned heroin and cocaine we were moving from a laissez faire society to a "caring" society and, therefore, had to restrict weak individuals from things that harm them.

Alcohol does cause problems but most people we drink do not drink to get drunk; we have many social norms around drinli

Adune @ 11:24

I have no issue legalizing heroin, cocaine and other illegal drugs PROVIDED we allow people to fail. I.E. employers can fire drug addicted employees for being drug addicted, we allow them to die in the gutter and we do not cut them slack when they commit crimes when impaired by their drug of choice.

We are a long way from being there. When we as a society banned heroin and cocaine we were moving from a laissez faire society to a "caring" society and, therefore, had to restrict weak individuals from things that harm them.

Alcohol does cause problems but most people who drink do not drink to get drunk; we have many social norms around drinking (granted, often violated but more often observed).

Recreational drug use is chemical masturbation.

Next Big Thing:

Cocaine in single-use blister packs - child-resistant, of course.

What's this world coming to when you can't even trust your dealer? /snark

Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

"My problem with this blanket drugs are bad approach..."
True. Personally I believe pot possession laws should be relaxed, meaning more often small amounts for personal usage are simply "overlooked". But formal legalization & taxation?! Can you just imagine the bureaucratic/legal nightmares involved? And would you really trust the government to grow decent weed anyhow??

If it were up to me I would rather law enforcement spend all it's time & resources to take out the gang sponsored meth labs, and not bother with the little guy growing a couple plants in the basement for personal use. However, myself not being involved in either activity, maybe law enforcement already does this to a certain extent?

btw, excuse my rambling, I've had more than a few beers here. ;)

whash wrong wiht having a frendly drinkie poo with a few frends now and them ?

or washing tv and sparking up a joint now and thin and having a larf ?

"But formal legalization & taxation?! Can you just imagine the bureaucratic/legal nightmares involved?"

Wouldn't it be simpler to leave these matters to the smoke shops on the rez?

My landlord is a medical marijuana user. Not for relief of chemotherapy or such, but because he suffers from chronic anxiety. He doesn't smoke a joint every day, or even every other day, but when he needs to, he does.

He holds down a respectable job in computer systems, has many friends, and is in all respects a "normal" person. On the other hand, I've had my struggles with alcohol, and in the course of treatment, I've met literally thousands of people whose lives have been destroyed by booze.

To say pot is "bad" and alcohol is "good" is stupid and simplistic. Some people can handle one, and not the other. Some people can handle both. Some people can't handle either one. Legalization, taxation, and treatment is the only sane course.

Couple of points:
1 - Huge new bureacracy? Unnecessary - use the existing provincial booze monopolies (OK, Alberta might have to make some changes after they finish catching all those rats).

2 - Government can't grow decent pot? According to my landlord, the government stuff he gets is just fine.

3 - Pot as a gateway drug? Please - they've been saying this since I was a teenager, and here's the way most kids I know reacted: "They told me pot was dangerous and addictive, and in my own experience, it's neither. If the adults lied to me about pot, they're probably lying to me about.. (more dangerous drug here)." Dealers use this line as well, as it's in their financial interest to move users from something relatively inexpensive and non-addictive like pot, to something more expensive and addictive, like cocaine or crack. Get pot out of the hands of street dealers, and the "gateway" effect will be shown up for the canard it is.

Jake: I'm not a pot advocate. I'm against giving organized crime an easy way to make money. I'm against throwing away all the tax revenues that can be gained from companies that produce, retailers that sell, most notably Pot & Cocaine.

Pot is currently estimated to be BC's LARGEST EXPORT. Allowing that to be completely controlled by the criminal element is insanity.

Adune you and not very in tune. So the gov,t legalizes pot and starts selling it. What percentage of THC would it be 5%- 15% - 25%. Let's say they have it at 10% and the local dealer is selling it cheaper that the gov't or better still he is selling higher grade with more THC. What about people who smoke hash and hash oil which is not legal. If we legalize marihuana we have to legalize all Cannabis products. From there we should legalize mushrooms, coca plant leaves, opium poppies etc. The only good thing about legalization it that natural selection would occur more often.

benefits of alcohol ??
dangers of pot
while my father died of cirrhosis of the liver
(caused by alcohol) pot helped him sleep eat
and not feel sick and mostly it made able to
tolerate the agony

good drugs , bad drugs. just rape or rape-rape. it all the new lexicon.

benefits of alcohol ??
dangers of pot
while my father died of cirrhosis of the liver
(caused by alcohol) pot helped him sleep eat
and not feel sick and mostly it made able to
tolerate the agony

They left out the important part about levamisole: it can cause agranulocytosis, which means, the white blood cells that fight bacterial infections are not made.

Why the hell would someone cut a drug with another drug? Bizarre, really.

The irrational fear of certain drugs by the right always confused me.

Adune, you may be operating on the false
assumption that the right is in any way
rational or coherent.

@Mike: the local dealer is selling it cheaper that the gov't or better still he is selling higher grade with more THC
-------------------
If you think a small time dealer can produce better, cheaper pot than Wal-Mart will be selling, you're deluded.

I guess nobody's buying Cigarettes, or Booze through legit channels because of all the better, cheaper tobacco & alcohol they can get from black market dealers.

Do you buy your pharmaceuticals online from a website that sent you spam even if you could save a little? They're just as good/safe as the real thing! We promise!

You grossly underestimate the ability for companies to compete, the power of advertising, and the convenience of corner store availability.

"War on drugs"....how is that one working out???
About as effective as the war on prostitution???

Regulating morality is a loser, always has been, always will be.

Give a chemical drug dealer 20 year prison sentences with no chance of parole, in a facility due north of Fort Simpson, and maybe, just maybe, you might reduce the use of those poisons.

The other problem we have here in Ontario is the fact that the same criminals dealing the crack/meth/speed also have access to our children because they are selling them contraband tobacco.(every one of my kid's friends who smoke buy their ciggy's from scumbag criminals selling contraband out of their homes/vans/pubs or whatever).

Let people grow their own pot, legalize it, and crack down HARD on all of the rest.

As an ex practicing Alcoholic/Addict clean and sober for 18 years now by the grace of God. My view is that until an addict or alcoholic hits a bottom that for them is hard enough to make them want to get clean and sober nothing will change for them.
So it is in their best interests for this bottom to hit as fast and as hard as possible. Enabling someone to continue to self destruct using drugs and or alcohol by the use of needle exchanges, welfare, food banks, free medication, giving the drug social acceptance is the worst thing you can do for the addicted. Cut them off, make them suffer, MAKE USING HELL, and then offer them an alternative, abstinence.
Then spend lots of money on treatment facilities and detox centers. The waiting lists are way to long.

"The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization "
"Lest we forget the lessons of history, consider that in the late 1800's, opium was legal in China. By 1900, ninety million Chinese were addicted to the drug, and it took fifty years of repressive police measures and rehabilitation to correct the problem."
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm

Many addicts, with their drugs available safely, at a reasonable cost, would be functional members of society.

I've noticed people who take drugs, or have taken drugs (even marijuana), have something twisted in their mind and can't be trusted. They can be the nicest people on the surface, but they can't be trusted.

9

H1N1 is the biggest fear-mongering scare.

laced cocaine is more dangerous.

life is what you make of it

I've noticed people who take drugs, or have taken drugs (even marijuana), have something twisted in their mind and can't be trusted.

Hoss, a believer in magic Jesus and the sky god,
thinks others are mentally twisted? Sheesh.

DON'T EAT THE BROWN ACID!

That war on break and enter - how's that working for you?

We should legalize theft, I say.

I'm with Cal2, Hoss, and cryptic cynic here, mental masturbation; why do we feel we must have this? I've never even had marijuana, and have had the good sense not to try the others, because I'm aware the potency of alcohol and tobacco. As for the high cost of illegal drugs, you think government control of my choices are cheap, think what the illegal drugs might cost. Plus you will be telling the youth that it's is alright to consume this garbage because the government condones its use.

Oh ... and don't try telling me that drug ingestion is about freedom and choice and liberty. It's obvious to anyone with eyes to see, that it's about tyranny.

"I've met literally thousands of people whose lives have been destroyed by booze."

Really is should be people who have destroyed their own lives by being too weak to control the amount of alcohol they consume.

How often have I heard recently that when a company is failing is should not be bailed out ... let it die and better company will replace it.

With that in mind, too much time, effort and other people's money is spent trying to 'bail out' the weak drug and alcohol user from them selves. Let them fail and better people will replace them.

I listen to Vancouver's most popular radio station CKNW980 where a disproportionate amount of programming is around the homeless, the addicts, the poor ... in reality it's about the useless, the stupid and the evil.

It really gets boring after awhile where you just crave stories and programming about successful people and those who achieve something so you don't feel like you are living in a completely debauched world. I for one, am sick of the phony oh-so caring society where so many people are being paid with other people's money to look after and continue to 'enable' the losers.

Let them fail ... it is efficient and merciful. Why prolong those lives of misery. Some will bottom right out and maybe claw their way back others will .... well ... who cares.

After all ... all the money and caring hasn't solved anything and never will. In fact ... it's getting worse every year.

Maybe I'ts just me but it seems those who favour legalization of recreational drugs are against GMO foods, are vegans, eat organic, believe in CO2 AGW and favour wind/solar and denounce nuclear energy.
These folk who claim to be concerned about "what they put into their bodies", readily ingest street drugs of unknown origin with little or no hesitation.

The question of legality and why.
The reason for BC Bud to be illegal seem to be that you can grow it yourself if that is what you want. That simple reason leaves out the tax collector, meaning in the mind of socialists and “journalists” that government is “loosing” money as though it had any money in the first place.
Then you have the booze business, they are rather well suited to oppose the BC Bud since it may significantly reduce their cash intake.
Tried BC Bud once at about 61 years old, bad move.

We should legalize theft, I say.

Obviously, theft is a violation of someone
else's property. Where, in a theft,
there is a victim, there is no victim
when someone freely imbibes a mind/mood altering
substance. No victim, no crime.
Except in the twisted view of borrow and spend,
big gov't, nanny stater conservatives.

Legalizing drugs means we condone their use? 17% of people in Canada already use pot. Over half of Canadian have tried it at some point.

We ALREADY have massive drug use. Criminalization has not stopped it. Usage rates have been rising for years. We already pay the high costs of drug use in our health care system, in the lack of productivity, in the jail costs.

Making something that people want illegal doesn't usually stop it. It simply drives it underground, and causes the criminal element to grow.

Again, Cannabis in BC is a 4 billion a year business. It's bigger than FREAKING FORESTRY. You really think our best option is having something that huge be in the black market?

Or do you think that the biker gangs in our cities are a good thing?

We should legalize theft, I say.

Actually, Kate, you employ the same reasoning
the Taliban would to justify the prohibition
of music, or kite flying.

I have tried to look at both alcohol and pot objectively. Both have benefits and both have dangers. It seemed to me that Adune was playing the same silly games that most pot advocates play by demonizing alcohol while sanctifying pot.

I prefer to look at the net effects of both. I don't want a chronic user of either drug to be working next to me on the construction site.

BTW I plan on having a glass of wine with my turkey today so Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

"It simply drives it underground, and causes the criminal element to grow"

Legalize drugs and biker gangs will go find jobs at McDonalds!

Do people even think about what they think anymore?

Do people even think about what they think anymore?

It's clear big gov't, nanny stater conservatives
don't.

Legalize drugs and biker gangs will go find jobs at McDonalds!

C'mon, Kate, this is beneath you. Are you saying that criminal gangs have nothing to do with the drug trade? They've taken over whole nations - first Colombia, and now Mexico, and of course Burma. One of the intractable problems in Afghanistan is the opium crop, which one would think NATO could wipe out in a matter of weeks if it had the will, but I (and many others) suspect corruption at the highest levels prevents this from happening. My wife's home province in the Philippines has a governor whom everyone knows is involved in the "shabu-shabu" (locally produced meth) trade. When there's so much money to be made from an artificial prohibition, money and corruption follow.

For months now, the Toronto papers have followed a case where six members of the Bandidos bike gang were murdered outside London, Ontario. One of the reasons they were killed was a dispute over drug territory. Anyone who seriously thinks that illegal drugs are not a huge source of revenue for biker gangs is burying their head in the sand, and that's just not like you, Kate.

that's just not like you

Scratch a conservative, find a hypocrite.
Few issues illustrate that reality
more clearly than the War on Drugs.

Let California do it first. That way we will be able to observe the tsunami of "unintended consequences" that are released ... and, of course, motorcycle gangs shutting down in California.

US pot growers pose threat to Mexican cartels

http://tinyurl.com/yj2q7kt

Like I said, this is one of the issues where I disagree with many conservatives. It feels like an emotional issue rather than one people can discuss rationally. I can't see how any rational person can think that our current approach is working, or even helping at all.

I can understand how someone can be opposed to people using Meth, crack, heroin, etc. But pot? It's less debilitating than alcohol, less addictive than nicotine, caffeine, less physically destructive than either.

It's by far the most significant illegal drug that we fight. It dwarfs cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. It's extremely popular, and it's being sold by criminals that have a vested interest in getting you addicted to REAL drugs.

I'm not saying current criminals all of a sudden become model citizens. Some will reform, certainly. There's several historic examples of grey market operations going legit. More significantly, existing biker gangs will lose their funding, and their power & influence in our streets will decline. Fewer youth will get involved in the illegal drug trade because the opportunities, and easy money won't be as many, or as easy.

Anyone that says pot is bad, and alcohol is acceptable is intellectually dishonest, or simply uneducated. They're both mind altering drugs, but only one of them leads to an increase in violence.

Blow your brains out with whatever you choose, just don't ask me to pay the bill for your social services and medical care. Get rid of socialism, and all other problems go away.

Uh....sorry....what was that article about?

I was distracted by the day's Sunshine Girl.

Adune,

You feel it's emotional, eh? There are about 300k "medical marijuana patients" in California. There are about 1.95M monthly users in CA. Given the story below - why aren't there 1.95M "medical marijuana patients" in California?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/874713/california-marijuana-scheme-out-of-control

Reference to the numbers:

http://canorml.org/prop/cbcsurvey3.html

Adune have you ever worked with long term habitual users of pot? They are every bit as debilitated as the most seasoned alcoholic. The long term medical problems brought about by the long term use of pot is only now becoming evident.

Two thoughts;

first, if the illegal drug kills someone then are we not a junkie less to worry (?) about, and,

how long before some fool will suggest an exchange program to turn in your bad drugs for good ones?

Posted by: Joe at October 12, 2009 1:44 PM

Bullshit.

I may be wrong, but this topic thread is about cocaine.

I notice some of the marijuana warriors and their incessantly boring threads from westernstandard are popping up here.

Cocaine is the topic here and whether there is such a thing as ‘good' cocaine.

I always get a chuckle out of listening to some people who are
wracked by their addiction to illegitimate pessimism arguing
about the relative merits of the recreational use of apothecary.

"""Adune have you ever worked with long term habitual users of pot? They are every bit as debilitated as the most seasoned alcoholic.""""

joe

bullshit, if you ain't informed try playing tiddlywinks or some thing

and as far as legalizing MJ, I'm all for it

but those who think this will reduce crime are idiots, the criminals will just change "professions"

Gambling was at one time illegal and in the hands of the underground. It is now out of control in the hands of governments. There is far more problems from people out of control with their gambling habits, (many elderly who spend their savings on this B.S.) and are now dependent on money they take from the public pot. The politicians have become dependent on money made immorally from its own citizenry.

but those who think this will reduce crime are idiots

Really? How can shifting limited resources from the futility of persecuting non-criminals (illicit drug users) to prosecuting actual criminals (thieves, for instance) not result in a reduction of crime overall?

there is no victim
when someone freely imbibes a mind/mood altering
substance. No victim, no crime.

Really??

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm

I'm no medical expert and I never claimed I was but isn't ALL cocaine bad?
When is this going to be decriminalised and taxed?

So granddad & GYM you have done your tours of duty in the addiction's centre where?

Each drug has its signature that you can often spot at a distance. You can recognize a long term pot user when talking to him/her on the phone.

Fewer youth will get involved in the illegal drug trade because the opportunities, and easy money won't be as many, or as easy.

What Kate said, legalize drugs and everyone inclined toward criminal activity will suddenly become model citizens. lol

Good cocaine is the equivalent to light cigarettes, or high quality whiskey. It simply keeps addicts alive a bit longer.

There's a young man in my town, who had been a promising athlete, but decided to follow his step brother into the drug trade. He gave my son some great advice the other night. He said the coke in our town is so bad, you're better off doing meth. My son was amused, and shared this it of wisdom with me.

Cocaine and alcohol are very similar in their effects on addicts. They both give users a sense of power. They both give users a dangerous level of self confidence. Both seem to have a magical power to trick users into believing they won't hurt you. To a non-drinker like me, they aren't much different in the harm they do to our children. I'll admit, I'd rather see my kids drink, than use cocaine, but either addiction is a tragedy. I wish there was a way to ban them both.

One more thing that's often overlooked. Most medical emergencies blamed on cocaine are really caused by a combination of cocaine and alcohol.

Like clockwork the usual suspects come out of the woodwork, people who can't afford a dictionary, don't know how to use one, or are simply illiterate again confuse the words use and abuse. Over 95% of adult human beings on the planet use caffeine every day. Tens of millions of Canadians enjoy occasional recreational use of other parts of the apothecary. Yet some neurally challenged people point to a few thousand who can't handle something as proof that the problem is with the thing, rather than with some people.

Guns can be abused: should we ban shooting? Cars can be abused: should be ban driving? Food can be abused: should be ban eating? Drugs can be abused: should we ban the apothecary? Property can be abused: should we ban ownership? God can be abused: should we ban religion? Look, if you can't do something without abusing it, don't do it, but don't claim that others who do not lack sufficient self-control should be prohibited by the state from enjoying something just because you do lack sufficient self-control.

Only totalitarian puritans would propose such a silly argument,
and if you are a totalitarian puritan, keep it in your pants, ok.

Vit,

I said:

"I've met literally thousands of people whose lives have been destroyed by booze."

Really is should be people who have destroyed their own lives by being too weak to control the amount of alcohol they consume.

Looks like we more or less agree.

Mo

Correct, Momar, and some people think they are
justified in preventing those people from ruining
their lives just as if they were chattel.

You wonder why the Islamists are gaining ground? Even though they are inclined to interbreed, and shun education? It's because their babies are not prone to fetal alcohol syndrome. FAS does not discriminate. It's just as happy affecting the fetus of a responsible social drinker, as it is visiting the fetus of an alcohol abuser. It's the invisible hand, that's holding the door shut, on so many of today's kids. The next few generations of British kids have very little hope of keeping their culture alive, because of their drinking habits.

FAS can affect someone who has a couple of drinks a day, during the first tri-mester. How many women don't even know they're pregnant during this period? It's too late to stop drinking after this critical stage of development has been compromised.

Totalitarian puritans survived many plagues that decimated the unwashed masses. They had much lower infection rates for diseases like, syphilis, and now AIDS. By the time science, and/or natural immunities catch up, the puritans might be back in control.

Crack babies are quite often FAS babies, just for good measure.

One of Scotland Yard's most senior officers, Chief Superintendent Anthony Wills, the borough commander of Hammersmith and Fulham in London, has called for hard drugs - including crack cocaine and heroin - to be decriminalized, saying that police cannot win the war against dealers.

Superintendent Wills said that as the state can not control the criminal trade in drugs, it should take it over instead. "I would have no problems with decriminalizing drugs full stop," said Mr Wills. "There have to be very stringent measures over the production and supply of drugs and we have got to remove the drug market from criminals. I do not want people to take drugs but if they are going to, I want them to take them safely, with a degree of purity and in a controlled way." Mr Wills, who heads more than 2,000 officers, said that draconian anti-drugs measures have always failed. "There are some places where people are beheaded if they sell drugs but even this does not stop the trade," he noted.

Joseph D. McNamara, a retired police chief from San Jose, California (who spent more than half his life as a police officer) and research fellow at the Hoover Institution (arguably the top conservative think tank in the world) has said that: "I regret that my country, when it comes to drugs, resembles Nazi Germany. Everyone is a potential enemy. Schoolchildren are trained to turn in their friends and parents, neighbors report on one another, and lawyers, doctors and clergy have become informants, often causing mandatory sentences more representative of a totalitarian government than a democracy. Drug cartels, dealers, corrupt governments, judges, politicians and cops have profited. It is inevitable that by trying to control through criminal law which chemicals free citizens put into their bloodstreams, the sacrosanct relationship between doctor and patient is also jeopardized."

A few years ago a study, headed up by Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan, was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The findings suggest controlled marijuana treatments can increase brain cell growth in the hippocampus area of the brain. The region is associated with learning and memory, as well as anxiety and depression.

The U of S study was performed on rats. They were injected with HU-210, a synthetic "cannabinoid" similar to a group of components found in marijuana, known as THC, but about 100 times the strength. THC is the compound of marijuana that produces the 'high' sensation in users. Zhang found that rats treated regularly with HU-210 experienced neurogenesis -- they grew new brain cells in the hippocampus area.

Zhang's team believes depression and anxiety may be caused by a lack of brain cell growth in the hippocampal region. If that is true, marijuana, or at least HU-210, could offer a treatment for both depression and anxiety disorders by stimulating the growth of new brain cells.

The fulcrum on which the lever of the debate over matters relating to the consumption by adult humans of various neuropsychopharmicological compounds pivots is the edge between collective utilitarian considerations, on the one hand, and considerations of individual freedom of experience and expression, on the other. On one end of the lever, we have authoritarian utilitarians like Mr. Bentham. On the other end, we have silly anarchists. At the fulcrum we have people like Mr. Bentham's nephew, Mr. Mill.

Now I must admit, I have a preference for Mr. Mill's opinion that "Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good."

Certainly any study of the legacy of oppressive authoritarianism would agree.

Nevertheless, it remains that case that some people commit errors against good advice and warning. The question then becomes, is the problem the input, the process, or the output? If X abuses Y, is it Y's fault, or X's? And if someone else, Z, uses but doesn't abuse Y, is X Z's fault?

Look, I'm a pragmatic libertarian, not an ideological utopian. I think an argument can be made, for example, in favour of laws against trafficking in, say, PCP. Nasty stuff, as I understand it, though I've never tried it, because as I understand it, it's nasty stuff. As I understand it, only someone who a priori needs help would want to do such a thing. Better to get them help (though the degree to which that tends to work or not is beyond the scope of this comment). I could rate the cost-benefit value of other "recreational" drugs, from PCP on down to caffeine, in my opinion, but I won't bore you.

On the other hand, lots of smart, productive people also engage to some degree of indulgence in some things that some others don't. Indeed, some of the most historically creative people have been known to overindulge in some things. Who exactly is to decide? Are you, Mr. Big Shot?

Do you know what balance of substances is appropriate for me? Do you have any idea what my blood assay or doctor says? That's right, these are my genetics, this is my neurology, it's not yours. Are you willing to stand up to me and say, Vitruvius, never mind how valuable and successful you've been in your life, you must stop behaving in manner Y because some other people X are losers?

A lot of you people are clearly afraid of things like ethanol and tetrahydrocannabinol. Maybe you're right to be -- maybe you can't handle them. But a lot of people are afraid of mathematics, and logic, because they can't handle them. Should I then be prohibited from being logical?

Some people clearly need help. Have we no poor-houses? Have we no asylums? Why are you bothering me, son? I've certainly been responsible enough to earn enough to pay enough taxes to cover the costs of such facilities. What, exactly, do you want from me?

In 1887, Roger Q. Mills wrote that: "Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud. It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil. It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives. It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness. It comes to bring us evil -- only evil -- and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs."

It somewhat surprises and saddens me that to this day, now in the third millennium, there are otherwise intelligent people, including SDA commenters who I otherwise respect, who remain prohibitionists, as if this is some sort of moral issue. It is not. The putative "war on drugs" is one of the biggest mistakes you are making.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson

I think what we are dealing with here are issues of pragmatism, not matters of absolutist ideology. I do not worship at the altar of Benthamite utility, though I admire its flying buttresses. The biggest enemies of reasonable pragmatism are the absolutist prohibitionists. Look at the Wahabbis. That's never worked, in 10,000 years; why should it start working now? We don't even absolutely prohibit homicide -- not if it's in self defense.

Drugs are chemicals. They do chemical things. There are very many chemical things I very much like. Polyvinyl chloride, say, or penicillin, for example. Of course, even penicillin can kill people who react poorly to it, nearly took my sister out once. But I still don't think that chemicals should be prohibited -- what would I make my cheese out of?

My body has not been corrupted, and my brain has not turned to mush, even though I've not been a teetotaler for soon to be four decades. My doctors tell me that there's a significant chance I may die slightly earlier as a result of the side-effects of my behaviour, with a Gaussian probability of a foreshortening of my life by about three to five years, unless of course I get hit by a bus first. I have stashed away a few hundred thousand extra dollars to look after any medical mediation I may decide to seek in the end game, without burdening others on that matter, while still contributing millions of dollars of taxes to the supposed benefit of all.

Therefore, as I see it, on this matter, my behaviour is my business, not yours. If you want to go after bad guys, based on their behaviour toward others, independent of their inputs, then fine, I'm with you. But if you want to go after good guys solely based on their inputs, then I'm against you.

I realize that tyranny can drive good people underground. I understand Metropolis. I don't think it's a good thing. I would rather deal with losers dieing in the streets than see a good man persecuted by totalitarian absolutists.

There is one proviso I would like to add to my comments above. As you may have noted, I've been talking so far solely about adults. When it comes to children, I think that elective adult drugs are inappropriate. I am in favour of having the law smack down adults who peddle such drugs to children. Kids must be provided with the space-time to be kids, else they end up maladjusted adults.

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve.

I'm not, actually, a prohibitionist. It does not work. That's why I've never preached it to my kids. Education is the key. The problem arises when so-called educators, with their own agendas, start spewing lies.

How about the "study" that showed a couple of shots of red wine to be the virtual fountain of youth. Commissioned in France, a country with a $2 billion a year wine industry. Also, a country with the highest rate os alcoholism on the planet. Guess what? France is also a country on the verge of being taken over by Islamic totalitarian puritans.

I don't believe prohibition is going to turn the tide. I think it's already too late. My dad would have drunk himself to death, if he'd had the money to do it. What really kept the western world from self-destruction, was a rugged existence, and lack of spare time, and spare funds. Idle hands are the real problem.

Cocaine is the ultimate manifestation of self destructive lifestyles. Richard Pryor once called it "God's way of telling you, you have too much money". I remember, very well, when cocaine first became a mainstream drug. I knew how dangerous it was, but most people, a bit younger, were convinced it was harmless. It didn't help when it became a favourite among lawyers, judges, and a few cops. Dealers became almost immune from prosecution. No party was complete without a coke delivery.

I don't give two hoots if you want to drink, smoke, or snort anything you see fit. Just don't try to make it into something respectable.

Actually, DP, I wasn't addressing you.
Your particular sickness I cannot help.
Now run along and join the Wahhabis.

Drug addicts are one of the governments favorite losers. Or should I say customers.

We kill people with compassion here. Have you noticed the so called Homeless get younger & younger as we supply them to live on the streets? I think its called enabling. Once people stalwart into this downward spiral only the young have the flexibility to leave it. That becomes more rare the more benefits they get.
JMO

Great Vit. Now toddle off, and crawl into a bottle of Merlot. It's after 5.

As per usual, Vitruvius becomes abusive and dismissive of anyone who does not agree 100% with his latest rant. And, as usual, he's wrong. Do you really think we should just stand by and watch in morbid fascination, as a whole generation destrys it's self, because it is, according to Thyself, none of our business?

what minuteman & vitruvius said

Wisdom is knowing where to draw the line between the worldviews of totalitarian puritanical prohibitionists and the nihilistic libertine dissipationists.

I'm SOLIDLY with Vitruvius, even if he's in his cups. A fine statement from a deeply thoughtful libertarian/optimist [notwithstanding his fondness for H.L. Mencken]

This is one of the acid tests for separating the libertarians (men) from the conservatives (values-pimping busybodies). The lunatic War on Drugs, and of course agricultural subsidies to saintly, self-sacrificing farmers.

We should be free to self-destruct, period. And, no, I'm not buying the 'heh, you can't self-destruct 'cos the State's on the hook for the costs' meme. The State's on the hook by its own tyrannical coercion and there's no opt out clause.

"I am in favour of having the law smack down adults who peddle such drugs to children."

Well, they are currently selling illegal substances to kids (or rather to kids who are selling it to kids) and getting a slap on the wrist. You see something magic happening once it's legal?

Prediction Time

1) Pot will be legalized

2) The crime free, beautiful utopia others have predicted in this thread will not happen.

3) Most of the stuff that the totalitarian absolutists said will happen - will happen.

4) Social engineers will tell us 3) is happening and they need more money to "fix" it.

5) Repeat 4) forever.

6) "Scientific studies" will tell us this utopia would be worse if we didn't do 1), and, they need more money for further studies.

7) Repeat 6) forever. Mix mice and monkeys into the studies every couple of years.

8) They will find a lot of homeless people that like pot. Because homeless people don't have homes to grow pot they will build greenhouses for them. They will teach responsibility (and save money) by having the homeless people water their own plants.

9) Plants all die because of lack of water. Social engineers get emergency funding to buy pot for homeless people.

10) Social engineers will propose doubling the size of the greenhouses and adding automatic watering - to make the operation sustainable and return a profit to the government because of all the extra pot they will have to sell.

11) To many homeless people show up for the harvest and they run out of pot before they run out of homeless people. Social engineers get emergency funding to buy pot for homeless people.

12) Repeat 11) forever. Every couple of years also repeat 10).

As per usual, Vitruvius becomes abusive and dismissive of anyone who does not agree 100% with his latest rant.

Abusive rant? Hardly. Eloquent and cogent, yes.
Those who profess liberty only for those things of which they approve, do not believe in liberty at all.

Who'd of thought it; Pillboy and Vitruvius share the same values. And the few thousands who abuse "recreational" drugs, are these just those in Burnaby, or would it include New Westminster too?
Uh ... infinity squared @ 9:21 - hilarious! and true

Really??
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm

Not sure what you're driving at here, Hoss.

1. I don't drink Merlot.

2. I'm not in my cups (yet).

3. DP expressed agreement with the behaviour of the Islamists, admiring them for the successes of their totalitarian puritanism, ergo my comment was simply supportive of his personal freedom and in no way abusive.

4. Libertarians do not agree with libertines.

5. It is not the case that a whole generation is destroying itself, unless of course you are referring to the people you hang out with.

6. Sorry for my delayed response, my sister and I were making thanksgiving dinner for my parents, and at their age we eat when they want to.

7. If you'll excuse me now, I have some cups to get into and a show to produce.

8. Happy thanksgiving, everyone, and thanks as always for inviting us to participate in your blog Kate.

9. We now return you to your regularly scheduled parade of triumphant pessimism and tired worn-out dogmatic religious extremists.

"Libertarians do not agree with libertines"

Nice dodge there Vit except I have never met a libertine who did not claim to be merely a libertarian nor have I met a libertarian who could on a moral basis rebuke a libertine.

Personally I recognize that one can not legislate morality yet we are our brother's keeper. Not only does the abstainer have an obligation to the indulger so too the indulger has an obligation to the abstainer.

A society whose end is dissipation is a society that is not long for this world.

Libertarians believe in freedom through responsibility.
Libertines believe in freedom from responsibility.

Libertarians believe in freedom through responsibility.
Libertines believe in freedom from responsibility.

Your point being? A true libertarian will never condemn a libertine because the minute he did he would cease to be a libertarian. He would at that instant cross over to the 'prohibitionist dark side'.

A libertine views himself as one who has taken libertarianism to its logical conclusion. He's views himself as a truly liberated libertarian.

Nonsense. A libertine may say, "I don't feel like working so you should support me", to which a libertarian will say, "Get a job or die, aszhole". Meanwhile, we're getting off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

This has been an excellent discussion on the subject at hand. Have you noticed how much better the conversation is when the resident imbecile troll, who has tried to inject himself into the conversation 9 times, is given the respect he deserves and is completely ignored?

Liberterianism, no different than Wiccans, "do what thou wilt".

as always, these sorts of threads inevitably result in crap.

Unlike always, Vit is spot on - and presents the rational approach to recreational drug use within modern society.

And since this thread has gone to pot (as it were), to all of the Socon mouthbreathing temperance wagon dragging morons in here - read Vitruvius' post above, and and pay attention.

Don't be such an idiot, Hoss.

There is one proviso I would like to add to my comments above. As you may have noted, I've been talking so far solely about adults. When it comes to children, I think that elective adult drugs are inappropriate. I am in favour of having the law smack down adults who peddle such drugs to children. Kids must be provided with the space-time to be kids, else they end up maladjusted adults.

Duh, what do you think is the purpose of the war on drugs?

Anyway, "do what thou wilt", the rest of us will clean up the mess. No man is an island.

One question that hasn't been asked is why authorities haven't issued any warnings to farmers about this levamisole that was cut with cocaine. A herd of coked up cattle or hogs, even chickens I imagine, could be quite dangerous!

but really, this isn't an unheard of ingredient used for cutting coke. I'm guessing it's not nearly as unusual as people think, and it's only that occasionally the dealers cut it a little too much and it gets noticed by authorities.

Here's a case in California, 2005.
http://www.cal-tox.org/Downloads/Monographs/Levamisole.pdf

Along with the requisite traces of human fecal matter and latex, you've got to wonder what other crap is mixed into the stuff.

No, Hoss, you ignorant git, Libertarian does not mean "do what thou wilt". Libertarian is an English language word, which means it has an English language definition. Since you have have to have a web browser to participate here, and since there are many English language dictionaries and encyclopedias on-line, you could look it up. For example, from the Political Dictionary:

The most precise form of libertarianism rests on a belief in the essential separateness of individual persons who possess, quite irrespective of whether or not they are part of a society or subject to the laws of a state, a set of inalienable rights, which necessarily include rights to acquire and retain property. The denial of these rights by states can never be defensible and people should only consider themselves subject to states in so far as those states enhance their rights or rest on voluntary procedures.

From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty. Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others.

From the Philosophy Dictionary:

In politics, libertarians advocate the maximization of individual rights, especially those connected with the operation of a free market, and the minimizing of the role of the state. In the libertarian vision, exercises of state power for positive ends, such as amelioration of social disadvantage through social welfare programmes, constitute infringements of the rights of others (‘taxation is forced labour’). The state is confined to a ‘nightwatchman’ role of maintaining order and providing only those public services that will not arise spontaneously through the free market.

From the Law Encyclopedia:

The core doctrine of libertarianism begins with the recognition that people have certain natural rights and that deprivation of these rights is immoral. Among these natural rights are the right to personal autonomy and property rights, and the right to the utilization of previously unused resources. These two basic assumptions form the foundation of all libertarian ideals.

Libertarians believe that government should be limited to the defense of its citizens. Actions such as murder, rape, robbery, theft, embezzlement, fraud, arson, kidnapping, battery, trespass, and pollution violate the rights of others, so government control of these actions is legitimate. Libertarians acknowledge human imperfection and the resulting need for some government deterrence and punishment of violence, nuisance, and harassment. However, government control of human activity should be limited to these functions.

Nowhere does libertarian mean "do what thou wilt", which leaves us with two possibilities, Hoss: either you are too stupid to learn the definition of the words you are pretending to use, or you lied to the readers here as a matter of deliberate fraud with malice aforethought.

My apologies, Kate, for continuing this, yet
I don't think it's a good idea to let people
promote known falsehoods here at SDA.

"Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action"

AKA "Do what thou wilt".

"provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others".

Ah therein lies the rub. In the exercise of my freedom who shall determine the degree of infringement of the freedom of others.

Thus my post earlier, "Wisdom is knowing where to draw the line between the worldviews of totalitarian puritanical prohibitionists and the nihilistic libertine dissipationists".

So, Joe's a liar too. The sentance says: "Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others". That means they don't believe you should have complete freedom if your action does infringe on the freedoms of others. That means they don't believe you should have complete freedom. That means they don't believe "Do what thou wilt", as you stupidly keep on insisting. You speak English, you read that, you know that. Leaving off the end of the sentance is another deliberate lie. Moreover, we've already covered the difference between libertarian and libertine. Another lie won't change that. Grow up.

I didn't lie Vit I simply broke the sentence into two parts. The first part is what many self proclaimed libertarians belief libertarianism is all about. The second part I believe is self explanatory. Life is a continuum. Somewhere between complete 'freedom' and complete 'slavery' is where the line must be drawn. I tend to place it closer to the freedom end of the continuum but that is just my personal choice.

don't think it's a good idea to let people
promote known falsehoods here at SDA.

Well, you've got your work cut out for you.

Shut up, Philboy, you're no better than them. You regularly post here egregious over- generalizations about conservatives (and others who sit to the right of the center aisle) that you know have no relationship to reality. I accuse you of malice aforethought just as much as those knowingly lying from any other perspective.

Meanwhile, nice save, Joe ;-) I was commenting on your 2:47 post before you snuck in the proviso. So, fine, we agree that somewhere between complete 'freedom' and complete 'slavery' is where the line must be drawn. I agreed with that in my 6:28 comment yesterday. I think that line is called libertarian ~ as it is defined ~ and the beliefs of self-proclaimed libertarians who don't know what the word means don't enter into it any more than would the beliefs of self-proclaimed Catholics who don't believe in Christ enter into the meaning of Catholicism.

You may place that line in a slightly different place than I. In principle we can discuss that. However, we cannot discuss it if you refuse to speak English by insisting that libertarian means "Do what thou wilt".

Furthermore, we should not discuss that here, because it
is off topic. My comments today have simply been on a
point of order regarding Hoss's idiotic 11:04 comment.

"Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others".

Just like the wicca proviso...Do what you like so long as you harm no one."

I assume the definition of harm lies within the minds of libertarians and wiccans. Just like leftists who create their own definitions.

So the Wiccans don't believe in "Do what thou wilt"
either, Hoss. That's two lies from you in one sentence.

I have always found libertarianism a bit of a philosophically thin gruel. I much prefer Christianity with words like:

Then don't let your good be slandered,for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then, let us follow after things which make for peace,
and things by which we may build one another up.

In other words my indulgence or abstinence is immaterial because I seek to serve a Higher Cause. Would that everyone so seek such a high cause but woe is us many have made their stomach their god.

Thus proving my point (9) correct as well.
I should find something challenging to do.
This is too easy. And it's off topic. Goodnight.