A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Marlow wrote:I need 'reminding' of what's good for me; I'm glad that I have laws that remind me (speeding, much?) of my responsibilities.
This is the essence of the nanny state mindset.
When people start acting responsibly on a regular basis then talk to me about letting people do whatever they want, whenever they want. I would like to PREVENT tragedy, rather than have to clean up its preventable mess. I have no problem with a government that tells me to obey the speed limit, wear my seat-belt, etc., etc. because even though it restricts my 'rights and freedoms' (which I do NOT like), I love the idea that IDIOTS can't hurt me or my family as easily now, WITH the restrictions put on them. I trust most people to act responsibly, but there's a large percentage that will only behave themselves when Nanny IS around.
Marlow wrote:I need 'reminding' of what's good for me; I'm glad that I have laws that remind me (speeding, much?) of my responsibilities.
That is fine. Some of us do not. Why should we be restrained by such laws just because you need them? I do buckle up not because it is the law, I do it because it is sensible. I do speed at times on an open, clearly visible dry highway in spite of the law, because it is going too fast for conditions rather than exceeding the arbitrary speed limit that causes tragedies. I drink alcohol and do not smoke marijuana not because one is legal and the other one is not, but because I like one and do not care that much about the other.
Marlow wrote:I need 'reminding' of what's good for me; I'm glad that I have laws that remind me (speeding, much?) of my responsibilities.
That is fine. Some of us do not. Why should we be restrained by such laws just because you need them?
You just answered your own question: "some of us do not [need laws]." Which means that some DO need laws to curtail themselves. So you (and others above) have NEVER gotten ANY kind of traffic ticket?! If you have, then you do NOT know how to always behave yourself. If you haven't, then you one of the few! (meaning that most of us DO need a 'Nanny State').
Marlow wrote:So you (and others above) have NEVER gotten ANY kind of traffic ticket?! If you have, then you do NOT know how to always behave yourself.
I answered this in advance in my previous post, the part you conveniently chose to ignore. We are not getting anywhere, you have your mind made up that drugs should be unlawful and that is it. I am sure you would vote to outlaw alcohol and cigarettes, too (most certainly socially the two most dangerous ones).
Marlow wrote:So you (and others above) have NEVER gotten ANY kind of traffic ticket?! If you have, then you do NOT know how to always behave yourself.
I answered this in advance in my previous post, the part you conveniently chose to ignore. We are not getting anywhere, you have your mind made up that drugs should be unlawful and that is it. I am sure you would vote to outlaw alcohol and cigarettes, too (most certainly socially the two most dangerous ones).
My (much) earlier comments on this thread stand. I will say, however, that I give Marlow credit for arguing a slightly less-than-intuitive case. Few would argue that there is a need for reasonable laws applied equally to everyone. The obvious issue is defining what is "reasonable"--and thus finding the "proper" balance between individual rights/autonomy and the health/safety of the social entity as a whole. It's not a new problem.
Pego wrote:We are not getting anywhere, you have your mind made up that drugs should be unlawful and that is it.
If your position is that heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, meth, etc. should be LEGAL, then yes, we will never see eye-to-eye. May I suggest that I have already won this debate, because these drugs will never be legalized, because most people see them as dangerous? I get the impression that you see your world as populated with like-minded individuals as yourself, who can control their urges and can take responsibility for their actions. I agree that these people do NOT need Nanny-state laws. Unfortunately I live in a world where many people can NOT control themselves and take responsibility for themselves. When these people do drugs, they often create great tragedy for OTHER people, so just punishing them for their abuses is a too-little-too-late scenario - their harm to others is already done.
Marlow wrote:these drugs will never be legalized, because most people see them as dangerous?
Certainly not in our lifetime, with that I agree. That would require political will with high risk of not being re-elected that few politicians will undertake .
As Pego intimated, most doctors would say that tobacco is the worst of all drugs, in terms of it having caused more morbidity and mortality in the history of the world, probably than all other drugs combined. I have amputated legs in my orthopaedic career only for 3 conditions 1) diabetic infections, 2) major trauma (rare), and 3) dysvascular legs from smoking. So if tobacco remains legal, it shows that Pego is likely correct that this is really a political argument, as why should it remain legal when the others are not?
? for Bam Bam, any other docs or for that matter anybody else....
Suppose just for a moment that alcoholic beverages had never been discovered until now, and then wham ! there they are ! What would be society's/governments' reaction be to its legality, etc. ?
Asociated ? is..., how many people die every year due to alcohol( including innocents) ?! More/less than tobacco ?
I'm not preaching on this subject. I've had a few drinks in my life just like virtually everyone else.
Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.
Was is not the inimitable Mick Jagger, who once proffered that
You can't always get what you want. No, you can't always get what you want . But if you try sometimes, well, you might find, You get what you need.
It is interesting ("sobering"?) to realize just how ancient alcoholic drinks are, beginning with beer and wine. It would appear that consciousness altering and civilization are joined at the hip.
From Wiki: Beer is one of the world's oldest prepared beverages, possibly dating back to the early Neolithic or 9500 BC, when cereal was first farmed, and is recorded in the written history of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Archaeologists speculate that beer was instrumental in the formation of civilizations.
kuha wrote: Archaeologists speculate that beer was instrumental in the formation of civilizations.
No doubt! People had to learn to band together for mutual survival. Alcohol made it easier to stand the harsh life (and each other!), but one poor schlub had to be the Designated Look-out in case of enemy attack. That woulda been me.
dukehjsteve wrote:? for Bam Bam, any other docs or for that matter anybody else....
Suppose just for a moment that alcoholic beverages had never been discovered until now, and then wham ! there they are ! What would be society's/governments' reaction be to its legality, etc. ?
Asociated ? is..., how many people die every year due to alcohol( including innocents) ?! More/less than tobacco ?
I'm not preaching on this subject. I've had a few drinks in my life just like virtually everyone else.
Tobacco would obviously never be permitted - there is that law in US congress that forbids the manufacture of anything known to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Tobacco gets past that because it was grandfathered in. But if it was discovered now and we knew this it could never be approved.
Not as certain about alcohol. Maybe Dr Jay or Pego know something but I am not aware of any association of alcohol with cancer. Obviously, dementia, liver failure, drunken driving problems, etc., but not cancer that I know of.
Don't have good #s about tobacco vs alcohol for morbidity/mortality, but in my own practice I see a lot more problems caused by tobacco than alcohol. That may not be true for Jay or Pego (Ivan) who have medical practices.
bambam wrote:Don't have good #s about tobacco vs alcohol for morbidity/mortality, but in my own practice I see a lot more problems caused by tobacco than alcohol. That may not be true for Jay or Pego (Ivan) who have medical practices.
A neurologist sees considerably more complications of chronic alcoholism from the common ones such as peripheral neuropathy to exceedingly rare such as Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome (never saw a case ).
bambam wrote:Don't have good #s about tobacco vs alcohol for morbidity/mortality, but in my own practice I see a lot more problems caused by tobacco than alcohol. That may not be true for Jay or Pego (Ivan) who have medical practices.
A neurologist sees considerably more complications of chronic alcoholism from the common ones such as peripheral neuropathy to exceedingly rare such as Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome (never saw a case ).
What about strokes in people with smoking history?
bambam wrote:Don't have good #s about tobacco vs alcohol for morbidity/mortality, but in my own practice I see a lot more problems caused by tobacco than alcohol. That may not be true for Jay or Pego (Ivan) who have medical practices.
A neurologist sees considerably more complications of chronic alcoholism from the common ones such as peripheral neuropathy to exceedingly rare such as Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome (never saw a case ).
What about strokes in people with smoking history?
I suppose. I am not intimately familiar with those stats. I think the data is more plentiful with coronary and peripheral vascular disease.
Marlow wrote:Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.
If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business. Some may suggest giving druggies their drugs free to advert crime. That would lead to the government creating and supporting a bunch of Zombies, which I am against.
Marlow wrote:Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.
If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business. Some may suggest giving druggies their drugs free to advert crime. That would lead to the government creating and supporting a bunch of Zombies, which I am against.
If pot cigarettes were sold next to the tobacco products, they would be no more expensive than standard cigarettes (majority of the price being the tax). Amphetamine and cocaine production is also not very expensive, nor are the opiate products (the same as poppy seeds). You just gave another very good argument for the legalization.
Marlow wrote:Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.
If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business. Some may suggest giving druggies their drugs free to advert crime. That would lead to the government creating and supporting a bunch of Zombies, which I am against.
If pot cigarettes were sold next to the tobacco products, they would be no more expensive than standard cigarettes (majority of the price being the tax). Amphetamine and cocaine production is also not very expensive, nor are the opiate products (the same as poppy seeds). You just gave another very good argument for the legalization.
So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts, that's what I fear. I cant be for something that makes more zombies.I may be wrong.
It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).
SQUACKEE wrote:If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business.
I don't know about that. The main reason why drug addicts steel and rob is because of the lack of affordability and availibility. You don't hear stories about alcoholics and smokers stealing and robbing. My belief is that if drugs were legalized, the increased use would be greatly offset by the elimination of drug related crime and the unburdening of our criminal justice system. Taxpayers would have to spend less money incarcerating people and the government would be able to tap another revenue stream, so it's a win-win situation. Those are the main reasons why Prohibition was repealed.
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?
That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?
That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
The only difference is that your response is "I believe", "intuitive", i.e. a speculation (neither "obvious", nor "logical"), while mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?
That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
The only difference is that your response is "I believe", "intuitive", i.e. a speculation (neither "obvious", nor "logical"), while mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
I thought the Dutch experiment went south? If pego is correct, then I am all for legalization as I am pro-drugs mostly, except the truly evil ones.
Anything can be abused and I wonder what the death rate is on junk foods-Marlow, too much sugar and fat leading to diabetes and heart disease? We have already started making them illegal- see trans fat and super sized soft drinks.
Pego wrote:It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).
Pego is right that the Netherlands is the best argument for legalizing some drugs. When my wife flew for TWA she went into a small shop and asked a Coke, and they rolled out a line for her. She did not use it.
When I was in Nepal back in the 70's during my Peace Corps days the drug scene was pretty open. Pot plants grew wild everywhere. Restaurants in Kathmandu had 'No Hashish Smoking' signs. And it didn't seem like that big of a deal, except for the spaced-out foreigners hanging around Phewa Tal (Lake) in Pokhara.
Pego wrote:mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
The Dutch?! Been there, seen that. Cannabis is also against the law there and harder drugs moreso.
wiki wrote:The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives: To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users. To reduce harm to users. To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighbourhood). To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.
Pego wrote:mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
The Dutch?! Been there, seen that. Cannabis is also against the law there and harder drugs moreso.
wiki wrote:The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives: To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users. To reduce harm to users. To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighbourhood). To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.
I guess their policy with drugs is similar to our policy with tobacco. The government does all sorts of things to discourage people from smoking cigarettes, but it still taxes tobacco and strictly controls its production and distibution.
My point was that contrary to your "intuitive" claim, loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use. The Dutch have by far the most liberal drug laws in EU. That is a fact, whether you've been there or not. Here is a paragraph from Wiki comparing the drug users numbers.
In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[27][28] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[28] The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.
The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.
The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?
Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law. Middle-aged people who are married with children and good jobs might be restrained by drug laws, but not young people. My guess is that young people in college settings are no more restrained by drug laws than the general polulation is by speeding laws.
).
