20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou stated this:
Why don't you stay on topic instead of turning to all kinds of ridiculous strawmenreasoning about obesity and demanding I answer questions imbedded in it.
Now, you are stating if someone wants to use drugs just let him. Well, a problem remains then. Is society obliged to pay for the costs caused by his drug use if he gets seriously ill ?
ME:My obesity analogy was in response to this assertion of yours. You seem to be saying that society has the right to stop a person from using drugs (with criminal law penalties) because their voluntary use of drugs imposes costs on society. My response is that someone who overeats and doesn't exercise (putting aside there can be other reasons for obesity as well) can get seriously ill for these voluntary actions as well. Therefore, under your rationale society could make overeating and not exercising a crime as well. The issue is on the logical consequences of your rationale; it is not a "strawman" and it is not "personal" so I don't see what you're getting so upset about.
21 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/05.htm
You stated this:
Now, you are stating if someone wants to use drugs just let him. Well, a problem remains then. Is society obliged to pay for the costs caused by his drug use if he gets seriously ill ?
ME:My obesity analogy was in response to this assertion of yours. You seem to be saying that society has the right to stop ...[text shortened]... a "strawman" and it is not "personal" so I don't see what you're getting so upset about.
For the obesity issue.
Nyxie
21 Feb 05
Whenever we debate a certain subject it would be good to have an understanding of how it started. Does anyone have a history of prohibition in america? Can anyone tell me what the first drug to be banned was and why?
We may find as we study and learn about the drug war that it's history lies in business and predjudism.
Prior to 1883, there were no federal laws against the manufacture, sale, use, or possession of drugs. As drugs had been available since before the Pilgrims arrived, the United States seemed to survive—even thrive—with no drug restrictions whatsoever. The primary "drug problem" was alcohol—not marijuana, morphine, or cocaine. Even state laws against drugs did not begin to appear until the late nineteenth century. In California in 1875, a blatantly racist law against opium was passed. Prejudice against the Chinese was high. The city of San Francisco prohibited establishments where opium was smoked. The law—like all drug laws that followed—failed. The large, well-run opium houses closed, but were immediately replaced by smaller, less reputable opium dens. A similar law was passed in Virginia City, Nevada, and similarly failed to work. Rather than realizing that such laws don't work, the Nevada state legislature made even more stringent laws. The state laws didn't work any better than the city laws, but that didn't stop other cities and states from passing laws. When all these laws failed, the United States Congress got involved.
and that is how it starts...
Nyxie
21 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NyxieSure. It was God.
Whenever we debate a certain subject it would be good to have an understanding of how it started. Does anyone have a history of prohibition in america? Can anyone tell me what the first drug to be banned was and why?
We may find as we stud ...[text shortened]... Congress got involved.
and that is how it starts...
Nyxie
Then it was Satan.
The first killings were in the 1520's because of the drug of "belief".
Too many people over-dosed and decided that the past two hundred years of witch killin' in europe couldn't possibly be wrong.
so they hitched em' up and killed some witches.
That was the first prohibition in america. "Thou shalt not dare to think."
It seems to me.
The good news is that a small bunch of white guys rectified it all in 1776.
The bad news is that it took another hundred and eighty years for it to mean anything.
And the really bad news is that most of the world still thinks it is "ok" to allow slave masters to kill on demand.
Oh well. Maybe someday we will grow up. Maybe. I'm not holding my breath. Most still think ole' Saddam should still be killin' his chillin' in the dungeons and the pits. Fits. Don't it? Modern "liberal" thought and killin' in the pits.
If I could generate more distain and disgust with a single word, it would be with the trivial "liberal" thing. Kill on. Just don't wage war to free the slaves. Disjusting mess. Sewer bilge at best.
21 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat could this possibly have to do with my statement or the war on drugs in america, and or prohibition?
Sure. It was God.
Then it was Satan.
The first killings were in the 1520's because of the drug of "belief".
Too many people over-dosed and decided that the past two hundred years of witch killin' in europe couldn't possibly be wrong.
so they hitched em' up and killed some witches.
That was the first prohibition in america. "Thou sh ...[text shortened]... " thing. Kill on. Just don't wage war to free the slaves. Disjusting mess. Sewer bilge at best.
Nyxie
21 Feb 05
Originally posted by NyxieI don't know. I thought you asked about "prohibiting" the human spirit.
What could this possibly have to do with my statement or the war on drugs in america, and or prohibition?
Nyxie
I don't think it will work. More than that. I think it is why communism failed.
21 Feb 05
Originally posted by NyxieCool. But next time try to implement a bit of humor in the agreement.
ok I see the relevance now, the legislating morality angle. I actually agree with you, it's futile.
Nyxie
Loik...
"So you are saying that we can't ship off a load of vandals to the south pacific and expect to not grow a nation"?
Or.
"So you are saying that ole' Brigham couldn't be shipped off to the great Salt Lake and not be expected to build a salty fleet?"
Humor. All we have is that poor thing.
21 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Is the war on drugs worth the cost?
If you look at the following quotes which I took from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
You'll probably get some idea why it is necessary to have a policy of discouraging the use of illegal drugs, not just the "hard" drugs like coke, crack, etc. but also the drug cannabis, that we used to call "s ...[text shortened]... ent and more informed angle: "Is the war on drugs worth the cost?"
How about it Nyxie ?
Can I expect a reaction to my post, Nyxie.
Remember your first post ? .... Let's debate 🙂 ?
21 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy original post has nothing to do about the abuse of drugs in any way. I asked if the war on drugs was worth the cost. Is it winning? Has drug use gone down? Does prohibition work?
Is the war on drugs worth the cost?
If you look at the following quotes which I took from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
You'll probably get some idea why it is necessary to have a policy of discouraging the use of illegal drugs, not just the "hard" drugs like coke, crack, etc. but also the drug cannabis, that we used to call "s ...[text shortened]... ent and more informed angle: "Is the war on drugs worth the cost?"
How about it Nyxie ?
I am not debating how drugs affect people, that is an entirely different debate.
If you want to debate this topic, I will be more then happy to reply.
Nyxie
21 Feb 05
Originally posted by Nyxie
My original post has nothing to do about the abuse of drugs in any way. I asked if the war on drugs was worth the cost. Is it winning? Has drug use gone down? Does prohibition work?
I am not debating how drugs affect people, that is an entirely different debate.
If you want to debate this topic, I will be more then happy to reply.
Nyxie
I see .....