Swiss approve prescription heroin

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    But they aren't logical, he's again using a statistic to prove what he wants to prove. Does our current war on drugs lack of effectiveness mean that stopping drugs is impossible or a bad thing,
    Please show me a country now or in history where they have stopped drugs.

    In just the time I’ve been an active drug war opponent, I have seen the government widen its ridiculous drug war to include a number of supposedly horrible menaces – the reefer madness de jour.

    They’ve targeted Qat, a leaf that is widely chewed in East Africa and especially by Somali immigrants; GHB, a chemical that is made in everyone’s brain; ephedra, a natural stimulant that when used responsibly avoids many of the nasty side effects of caffeine. And, now, there is the scare about the "new marijuana" – salvia divinorum, a plant that virtually no one is addicted to and that very few people even find recreational.

    Meanwhile, of course, tobacco claims hundreds of thousands of lives a year and alcohol causes tens of thousands of is associated with a third or half of suicides and homicides. The damage done to the system by tobacco and its high rate of addictiveness and the toxicity, neural degeneration, heart, liver, muscle birth and pancreatic problems caused by alcohol, which has a chemical withdrawal, unlike cocaine and heroin, indicates these drugs are the most dangerous in our society. Some prohibitionists believe these too should be outlawed.

    That is of course the "logical" implication of drug war reasoning.


    [quote]or does it mean that we need to impose harsher penalties including death sentences? Or change in some other way how we do it?[quote]

    Death sentences for drugs,like Saudi Arabia?

    Let me quote a man who many conservatives claim to admire,Ludwig von Mises, master Austrian economist and one of the greatest classical liberal thinkers of all time.

    This is from Mises’s economic masterpiece, Human Action, written sixty years ago in 1949:


    "But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.

    A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine.

    And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only?

    Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs
    .

    These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.




    By his logic, we should stop bothering to try and find a cure for any cancer (or even treat cancer) as its rarely successful that we save someone, and so we should just keep them pumped on morphine till they die.
    Faulty analogy. The drug war itself is killing people,how would trying to find a cure for cancer be killing people?

    Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself,can you say the same of trying to find a cure for cancer?

    The US imprisons nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone,has finding a cure for cancer imprisoned anyone?

    Nice try though.

  2. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    You provided a part of a book that states that if you are good you won't do these things and if you are bad then you will... Sort of states the obvious.

    When you lock your doors you're just keeping the honest man, honest. If someone wants your stuff they're going to take it regardless of what's in front of them. The point is to keep from adding to those people that are trying to take it. It's against the law to murder someone and you better believe if it became legal that there would be a lot more murder and each person would justify to themselves why it was a legit killing. Society would start moving in the direction the lack of a law allows.

    In every law that has been eased or lifted you will find those trying their best to push those limits even further. If you lifted murder as a crime it would be outragious to commit even though it would be legal until people were used to seeing it happen and it was no longer a shock.
    You skipped the youtube video with the authors explanation of scientific reasons why people behave well most of the time.

    It is an inner directed phenomenon,not an outer directed one where external constraints ie.laws are all that is holding people back from savage behavior.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2gIynxedw"]YouTube - Michael Shermer on The Science of Good and Evil[/ame]
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Please show me a country now or in history where they have stopped drugs.
    Again, same analogy, should the fact that a cure for liver cancer hasn't been created be a reason to stop looking for one?

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Meanwhile, of course, tobacco claims hundreds of thousands of lives a year and alcohol causes tens of thousands of is associated with a third or half of suicides and homicides. The damage done to the system by tobacco and its high rate of addictiveness and the toxicity, neural degeneration, heart, liver, muscle birth and pancreatic problems caused by alcohol, which has a chemical withdrawal, unlike cocaine and heroin, indicates these drugs are the most dangerous in our society. Some prohibitionists believe these too should be outlawed.

    That is of course the "logical" implication of drug war reasoning.
    And again, I fail to see the problem with that. Particularly when people want free health care to be government provided, I see no reason for successful people who choose to live healthy lifestyles finding it repulsive to have to pay
    taxes to fund the unhealthy lifestyle choices of others.

    or does it mean that we need to impose harsher penalties including death sentences? Or change in some other way how we do it?

    Death sentences for drugs,like Saudi Arabia?
    Sure, is there higher drug usage in Los Angeles or Saudi Arabia?

    Let me quote a man who many conservatives claim to admire,Ludwig von Mises, master Austrian economist and one of the greatest classical liberal thinkers of all time.

    This is from Mises’s economic masterpiece, Human Action, written sixty years ago in 1949:


    "But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.

    A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine.

    And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only?

    Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs
    .

    These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.
    Again, when people expect to be able to sue for product liability, and have other's tax dollars pay for their crappy health choices, it does behoove a government to do that. It is always the tightrope line for a government, you will make some unhappy and some happy by any protections you give, or refuse to give.




    Faulty analogy. The drug war itself is killing people,how would trying to find a cure for cancer be killing people?
    It does, by wasting resources that could be spent elsewhere. How many millions have been spent trying to find a cure for cancer? How many starving ethiopians or palestinians could have been fed with the money being thrown away on "a cause that has never worked". So it is not a faulty analogy.

    Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself,can you say the same of trying to find a cure for cancer?
    Honestly not sure what problems the drug war itself has created, so you'd need to be specific

    The US imprisons nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone,has finding a cure for cancer imprisoned anyone?

    Nice try though.
    cancer research isn't illegal, so nobody is in prison for it. Not sure how that helps your point
  4. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Again, same analogy, should the fact that a cure for liver cancer hasn't been created be a reason to stop looking for one?
    Faulty analogy. Comparing the the Drug War (malevolent) and a the search for a cure for cancer (benevolent) are like comparing apples and oranges.




    Sure, is there higher drug usage in Los Angeles or Saudi Arabia?
    How about Los Angeles or Amsterdam?

    Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category

    http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/dru.../thenetherlan/


    Again, when people expect to be able to sue for product liability, and have other's tax dollars pay for their crappy health choices, it does behoove a government to do that. It is always the tightrope line for a government, you will make some unhappy and some happy by any protections you give, or refuse to give.
    The Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This effectively means that if the Constitution does not grant the power to the federal government over something, then it is for the states and people to decide. Some people here would say this is the most important amendment. If the federal government obeyed it, the entire drug war as we know it would be impossible

    The Ninth Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    This means that just because a personal right is not specifically mentioned does not mean the federal government can infringe upon it. Certainly the rights to use and sell drugs are being attacked in this very way.

    And in moral terms, this is what the drug war means. It is the denial of self-ownership. Someone who can’t decide what to put in himself does not own himself. The logic of the drug war is that the government owns you.

    We look at all the rights trampled in the name of the drug war and we see how all rights are connected. People are denied the right to self-medicate and take the treatment they desire. Not just in regard to illegal drugs either, but those that are regulated.

    The Food and Drug Administration is tied at the hip to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The pharmaceutical interests who control federal prescription drug policy have a stake in maintaining a control on what drugs people can do. The FDA, by keeping life-saving drugs off the market, has forced tens and tens of thousand Americans to die prematurely. Mary Ruwart puts the number in the millions.





    It does, by wasting resources that could be spent elsewhere. How many millions have been spent trying to find a cure for cancer? How many starving ethiopians or palestinians could have been fed with the money being thrown away on "a cause that has never worked". So it is not a faulty analogy.
    Well then,using your "logic" spending money on vacations kills people as well,they are not a necessity, and how many starving ethiopians or palestinians could have been fed with the money being thrown away?




    Honestly not sure what problems the drug war itself has created, so you'd need to be specific
    Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles.

    Roughly 1.5 million people are arrested each year for drug law violations - 40% of them just for marijuana possession.

    Children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency.

    People suffering from cancer and other debilitating illnesses are regularly denied access to their medicine or even arrested and prosecuted for using medical marijuana




    cancer research isn't illegal, so nobody is in prison for it. Not sure how that helps your point
    I said "The US imprisons nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone,has finding a cure for cancer imprisoned anyone?"

    Point being,the war on drugs and its affects are very different from the race to find a cure for cancer, this is why your analogy is faulty.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. No heroin users please
    By bikeswimlive in forum Supplements
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 06:54 PM
  2. Don't like future Swiss customers???
    By Jench in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 01:30 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 08:36 PM
  4. Swiss ball routine
    By Sanosuke in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-11-2003, 07:26 PM
Log in
Log in