You Might Live in a Country Run By Idiots If...

[djAdvocate]

two words for you: Rob Ford

[mmhmm]

Sept 14, 2014 23:27:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

two words for you: Rob Ford

ROFL! I was thinking exactly the same thing! Idiots aren't only resident in the US!

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 14, 2014 23:27:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

two words for you: Rob Ford

Oop. Be careful. He's left the Toronto mayoral race because of a tumour in his stomach and hence poking fun at him has gone out of fashion.

[happyhoix]

In short, the facts themselves do in fact change.

No. Our knowledge base is constantly expanding. As much as we know, we know very little about the universe, and we learn more every day. But everything we learn must comply with the scientific method in order to be accepted as 'fact.'

As opposed to religious belief, where people, acting on faith, accept as truth information written down hundreds or thousands of years ago and accepted without question - so that (if you're a Scientologist, anyway) you firmly believe that aliens were dropped into volcanos and those negative alien particles now reside in all humans, despite any scientific proof to the contrary.
 
I'm not anti-religion, I just want people to keep a clear separation between science and faith.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 15, 2014 6:53:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

In short, the facts themselves do in fact change.

No. Our knowledge base is constantly expanding. As much as we know, we know very little about the universe, and we learn more every day. But everything we learn must comply with the scientific method in order to be accepted as 'fact.'

As opposed to religious belief, where people, acting on faith, accept as truth information written down hundreds or thousands of years ago and accepted without question - so that (if you're a Scientologist, anyway) you firmly believe that aliens were dropped into volcanos and those negative alien particles now reside in all humans, despite any scientific proof to the contrary.
 
I'm not anti-religion, I just want people to keep a clear separation between science and faith.

If you're not going to address any of my specific arguments or criticisms about why science is mutable, believe what you want.

I'll also point out that faith is not always "accepted without question", and that "scientific proof to the contrary" is just as often "scientific conjecture to the contrary"--much of which has historically failed at some point as mankind's scientific understanding changed.

Insofar as the distinction between science and religion, we agree. There is a distinction, and it is an important distinction. What any of this has to do with the thread topic, I don't know. I don't see science offering insights one way or another regarding any of the issues in the OP. If EVT wanted to take a shot at religion, he shouldn't have pointed to government. The majority of US economic policy, social policies, tax policies, electoral policies have all long-since been scientifically informed or even wholly science-based. A reasonable observer should easily conclude that science isn't the magic ingredient that makes such policies work. Science is an incredible tool, but it has its limitations.

Moreover, we've established in many previous threads that even the die hard rationalist posters on our board reject (or are at least extraordinarily skeptical of) scientific findings they don't agree with.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 6:05:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 14, 2014 23:27:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

two words for you: Rob Ford

Oop. Be careful. He's left the Toronto mayoral race because of a tumour in his stomach and hence poking fun at him has gone out of fashion.

unless tumors magically convert idiots into wise men, i think i will stand pat.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 15, 2014 17:22:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 6:05:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oop. Be careful. He's left the Toronto mayoral race because of a tumour in his stomach and hence poking fun at him has gone out of fashion.

unless tumors magically convert idiots into wise men, i think i will stand pat.

Strange that you of all people should go on record calling a drug addict an "idiot".

Isn't hard drug use no big deal in your world?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 19:05:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 15, 2014 17:22:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

unless tumors magically convert idiots into wise men, i think i will stand pat.

Strange that you of all people should go on record calling a drug addict an "idiot".

Isn't hard drug use no big deal in your world?

dude, i am using YOUR WORD.  but if you want to ride me for it.....

idiot is a clinical term.  it applies to someone who has mental deficiencies.  such a person gets nothing but sympathy from me. 

and i am not mocking Rob for his drug issues.  but truthfully, i have no fondness for addicts.  i just just don't view them as failures, any more than i do a person who has diabetes or heart disease or cancer.  they are all sick, and they deserve treatment.  i think that if we locked up people for the crime of having cancer, i would feel the same way about those laws that i do about drug USE laws.  so, no, Rob has my sympathies for his illness, and i wish him well.

it is totally bizarre (and perhaps drug induced) BEHAVIOR that i find so amusing.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 15, 2014 22:31:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 19:05:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Strange that you of all people should go on record calling a drug addict an "idiot".

Isn't hard drug use no big deal in your world?

dude, i am using YOUR WORD.  but if you want to ride me for it.....

idiot is a clinical term.  it applies to someone who has mental deficiencies.  such a person gets nothing but sympathy from me. 

and i am not mocking Rob for his drug issues.  but truthfully, i have no fondness for addicts.  i just just don't view them as failures, any more than i do a person who has diabetes or heart disease or cancer.  they are all sick, and they deserve treatment.  i think that if we locked up people for the crime of having cancer, i would feel the same way about those laws that i do about drug USE laws.  so, no, Rob has my sympathies for his illness, and i wish him well.

it is totally bizarre (and perhaps drug induced) BEHAVIOR that i find so amusing.

I understand (and sympathize with) your position of wanting to rehabilitate addicts rather than locking them up (we have a disagreement on the costs, but I digress). Several times in the past I've gotten the distinct impression that your stance towards hard drugs is more lenient than that. In particular I get the impression you believe hard drugs don't inherently present a threat, and that there are circumstances under which they can be used responsibly.

As far as I'm concerned, Rob Ford is/was as responsible a drug user as high-functioning drug users get. He was discreet until the problem inevitably grew out of hand (it took decades for his addiction to come to light). He was obviously capable of holding down a respectable job. He's certainly not an unintelligent or uneducated man, and he accomplished good work while in office.

To me he embodies precisely why hard drugs are treated separately from prescription drugs, despite the pervasive abuse of both in our society: hard drugs cannot under any circumstances be used responsibly. Mayor Ford stands as a bold example of how deeply corrupted a high-functioning drug user's personal perceptions can become.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 6:33:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 15, 2014 22:31:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dude, i am using YOUR WORD.  but if you want to ride me for it.....

idiot is a clinical term.  it applies to someone who has mental deficiencies.  such a person gets nothing but sympathy from me. 

and i am not mocking Rob for his drug issues.  but truthfully, i have no fondness for addicts.  i just just don't view them as failures, any more than i do a person who has diabetes or heart disease or cancer.  they are all sick, and they deserve treatment.  i think that if we locked up people for the crime of having cancer, i would feel the same way about those laws that i do about drug USE laws.  so, no, Rob has my sympathies for his illness, and i wish him well.

it is totally bizarre (and perhaps drug induced) BEHAVIOR that i find so amusing.

I understand (and sympathize with) your position of wanting to rehabilitate addicts rather than locking them up (we have a disagreement on the costs, but I digress). Several times in the past I've gotten the distinct impression that your stance towards hard drugs is more lenient than that. In particular I get the impression you believe hard drugs don't inherently present a threat, and that there are circumstances under which they can be used responsibly.

As far as I'm concerned, Rob Ford is/was as responsible a drug user as high-functioning drug users get. He was discreet until the problem inevitably grew out of hand (it took decades for his addiction to come to light). He was obviously capable of holding down a respectable job. He's certainly not an unintelligent or uneducated man, and he accomplished good work while in office.

To me he embodies precisely why hard drugs are treated separately from prescription drugs, despite the pervasive abuse of both in our society: hard drugs cannot under any circumstances be used responsibly. Mayor Ford stands as a bold example of how deeply corrupted a high-functioning drug user's personal perceptions can become.

i think that the "harder" a drug is (most addictive and harmful to physiology), the more tightly it should be controlled.  so, on that basis, crack, cigarettes, and alcohol would be the most tightly controlled, followed by all drugs, down to the least addictive and harmful, which is pot. 

but let me be clear: if we are going to make marijuana a class 1 narcotic here, then the gov has no business regulating drugs AT ALL.  so, if it is a choice between having alcohol and pot totally legal, and pot class 1, and having ALL DRUGS legal, i will choose the latter.  in other words, i am against the STUPIDITY of our drug policy, not "controlled substances" in general.

edit: i also think possession should be decriminalized.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 11:03:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 16, 2014 6:33:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I understand (and sympathize with) your position of wanting to rehabilitate addicts rather than locking them up (we have a disagreement on the costs, but I digress). Several times in the past I've gotten the distinct impression that your stance towards hard drugs is more lenient than that. In particular I get the impression you believe hard drugs don't inherently present a threat, and that there are circumstances under which they can be used responsibly.

As far as I'm concerned, Rob Ford is/was as responsible a drug user as high-functioning drug users get. He was discreet until the problem inevitably grew out of hand (it took decades for his addiction to come to light). He was obviously capable of holding down a respectable job. He's certainly not an unintelligent or uneducated man, and he accomplished good work while in office.

To me he embodies precisely why hard drugs are treated separately from prescription drugs, despite the pervasive abuse of both in our society: hard drugs cannot under any circumstances be used responsibly. Mayor Ford stands as a bold example of how deeply corrupted a high-functioning drug user's personal perceptions can become.

i think that the "harder" a drug is (most addictive and harmful to physiology), the more tightly it should be controlled.  so, on that basis, crack, cigarettes, and alcohol would be the most tightly controlled, followed by all drugs, down to the least addictive and harmful, which is pot. 

but let me be clear: if we are going to make marijuana a class 1 narcotic here, then the gov has no business regulating drugs AT ALL.  so, if it is a choice between having alcohol and pot totally legal, and pot class 1, and having ALL DRUGS legal, i will choose the latter.  in other words, i am against the STUPIDITY of our drug policy, not "controlled substances" in general.

edit: i also think possession should be decriminalized.

Criminalizing possession is just a reasonable step in controlling the out of control use of drugs in this country.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 12:00:36 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 11:03:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think that the "harder" a drug is (most addictive and harmful to physiology), the more tightly it should be controlled.  so, on that basis, crack, cigarettes, and alcohol would be the most tightly controlled, followed by all drugs, down to the least addictive and harmful, which is pot. 

but let me be clear: if we are going to make marijuana a class 1 narcotic here, then the gov has no business regulating drugs AT ALL.  so, if it is a choice between having alcohol and pot totally legal, and pot class 1, and having ALL DRUGS legal, i will choose the latter.  in other words, i am against the STUPIDITY of our drug policy, not "controlled substances" in general.

edit: i also think possession should be decriminalized.

Criminalizing possession is just a reasonable step in controlling the out of control use of drugs in this country.

sure, because prohibition just worked so amazingly great.  right.

[happyhoix]

Criminalizing possession is just a reasonable step in controlling the out of control use of drugs in this country.

 The problem with arresting people for possession is that we don't do that in a fair handed way.

For instance, black and white teens use pot in about equal numbers. But black kids are far more likely to go to jail for possession than white ones. Kids with a criminal record have a harder time getting a job and staying out of trouble. It's not fair. If you're going to round up kids on an urban street and search them for drugs, you also have to start doing surprise drug searches at the suburban malls, too. 

Rather than our limited police force spending their time and effort searching out the users, we should be putting all our drug enforcement money into busting up the drug rings, the whole salers, the smugglers.


 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 12:00:36 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 11:03:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think that the "harder" a drug is (most addictive and harmful to physiology), the more tightly it should be controlled.  so, on that basis, crack, cigarettes, and alcohol would be the most tightly controlled, followed by all drugs, down to the least addictive and harmful, which is pot. 

but let me be clear: if we are going to make marijuana a class 1 narcotic here, then the gov has no business regulating drugs AT ALL.  so, if it is a choice between having alcohol and pot totally legal, and pot class 1, and having ALL DRUGS legal, i will choose the latter.  in other words, i am against the STUPIDITY of our drug policy, not "controlled substances" in general.

edit: i also think possession should be decriminalized.

Criminalizing possession is just a reasonable step in controlling the out of control use of drugs in this country.

is criminalizing the possession of guns a reasonable step to controlling gun violence?

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 12:11:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:00:36 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Criminalizing possession is just a reasonable step in controlling the out of control use of drugs in this country.

sure, because prohibition just worked so amazingly great.  right.

Alcohol causes enough problems, we don't need to add drugs to the populace also.  It's like pouring gasoline onto a fire.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 12:29:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:00:36 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Criminalizing possession is just a reasonable step in controlling the out of control use of drugs in this country.

is criminalizing the possession of guns a reasonable step to controlling gun violence?

Chicago thought so, but they had one of the highest gun crime rates in the country.  I guess it didn't work.

[mmhmm]

Sept 16, 2014 12:36:04 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:11:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure, because prohibition just worked so amazingly great.  right.

Alcohol causes enough problems, we don't need to add drugs to the populace also.  It's like pouring gasoline onto a fire.

I've often wondered why those who are so in favor of having drugs illegal don't seem to be interested in doing the same thing with alcohol. The latter causes just as many, if not more problems than the former. Yet, you rarely hear a howl for criminalizing it.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 12:39:06 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:36:04 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Alcohol causes enough problems, we don't need to add drugs to the populace also.  It's like pouring gasoline onto a fire.

I've often wondered why those who are so in favor of having drugs illegal don't seem to be interested in doing the same thing with alcohol. The latter causes just as many, if not more problems than the former. Yet, you rarely hear a howl for criminalizing it.

I feel all the drugs now illegal, should be available through a prescription from a doctor.  Some are way more effective for end of life pain care, or chronic high pain diseases.

[mmhmm]

Sept 16, 2014 12:47:51 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:39:06 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've often wondered why those who are so in favor of having drugs illegal don't seem to be interested in doing the same thing with alcohol. The latter causes just as many, if not more problems than the former. Yet, you rarely hear a howl for criminalizing it.

I feel all the drugs now illegal, should be available through a prescription from a doctor.  Some are way more effective for end of life pain care, or chronic high pain diseases.

Absolutely correct and I wouldn't disagree.

ETA:  I would, however, expect to see alcohol included.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 12:49:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:47:51 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I feel all the drugs now illegal, should be available through a prescription from a doctor.  Some are way more effective for end of life pain care, or chronic high pain diseases.

Absolutely correct and I wouldn't disagree.

ETA:  I would, however, expect to see alcohol included.

Carrying around a permanent back injury from a drunk driver who broadsided my car 35 years ago, puts me firmly in the more controls on alcohol group.

[mmhmm]

Sept 16, 2014 13:01:04 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:49:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Absolutely correct and I wouldn't disagree.

ETA:  I would, however, expect to see alcohol included.

Carrying around a permanent back injury from a drunk driver who broadsided my car 35 years ago, puts me firmly in the more controls on alcohol group.

Having treated victims of both persuasions (the drunks and their victims), I'm in total agreement, jma.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 12:36:04 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:11:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure, because prohibition just worked so amazingly great.  right.

Alcohol causes enough problems, we don't need to add drugs to the populace also.  It's like pouring gasoline onto a fire.

we already have drugs in the general population.  criminalizing their use drives addicts and users underground.  there is no evidence whatsoever that it decreases SUPPLY.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 12:38:05 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:29:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is criminalizing the possession of guns a reasonable step to controlling gun violence?

Chicago thought so, but they had one of the highest gun crime rates in the country.  I guess it didn't work.

so, if criminalizing alcohol didn't work, and criminalizing guns didn't work, what makes you think it works for drugs?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2014 12:47:51 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:39:06 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've often wondered why those who are so in favor of having drugs illegal don't seem to be interested in doing the same thing with alcohol. The latter causes just as many, if not more problems than the former. Yet, you rarely hear a howl for criminalizing it.

I feel all the drugs now illegal, should be available through a prescription from a doctor.  Some are way more effective for end of life pain care, or chronic high pain diseases.

that is one form of decriminalization.  so, i guess we are in agreement. 

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 13:31:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:38:05 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Chicago thought so, but they had one of the highest gun crime rates in the country.  I guess it didn't work.

so, if criminalizing alcohol didn't work, and criminalizing guns didn't work, what makes you think it works for drugs?

It doesn't. But if it stops one person a year from being maimed or killed is it worth it? I'm thinking of an innocent death penalty convict or something like that.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2014 8:54:16 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 13:31:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, if criminalizing alcohol didn't work, and criminalizing guns didn't work, what makes you think it works for drugs?

It doesn't. But if it stops one person a year from being maimed or killed is it worth it?

you won't like this answer: no.  it is not.  depriving the liberty of individuals to do whatever they like with their person or property so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other in no way compares to the loss of life of a few reckless individuals that take that liberty too far.

I'm thinking of an innocent death penalty convict or something like that.

that has nothing to do with individual choice.  when the death penalty is at the option of the inmate, not the state, THEN we can talk.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2014 13:30:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 16, 2014 12:36:04 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Alcohol causes enough problems, we don't need to add drugs to the populace also.  It's like pouring gasoline onto a fire.

we already have drugs in the general population.  criminalizing their use drives addicts and users underground.  there is no evidence whatsoever that it decreases SUPPLY.

My last surviving friend from the old school days has a daughter who is now thirty years old. When she was 19 she had a very bad blood infection from sharing needles and ended up with heart valve damage and other organ damage. She is wheelchair bound and not expected to live much past forty. I used to play with her and was like a close uncle to her. I hardly see her any more and she is literally not in contact with anyone and is under care for depression. She almost died last February when she almost bled out due to blood thinners during her menses. I know kids do stupid things and this was one of them and it was her fault. Her life was over before it had a chance to get started. I just have a hard time with the drug thing because of it. I can't really give the argument a fair shake that it is due, because the bad side of the problem was too close to home for me.

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2014 9:01:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 18, 2014 8:54:16 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

It doesn't. But if it stops one person a year from being maimed or killed is it worth it?

you won't like this answer: no.  it is not.  depriving the liberty of individuals to do whatever they like with their person or property so long as they are not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other in no way compares to the loss of life of a few reckless individuals that take that liberty too far.

I'm thinking of an innocent death penalty convict or something like that.

that has nothing to do with individual choice.  when the death penalty is at the option of the inmate, not the state, THEN we can talk.

Agreed, bad comparison.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2014 9:14:11 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 16, 2014 13:30:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we already have drugs in the general population.  criminalizing their use drives addicts and users underground.  there is no evidence whatsoever that it decreases SUPPLY.

My last surviving friend from the old school days has a daughter who is now thirty years old. When she was 19 she had a very bad blood infection from sharing needles and ended up with heart valve damage and other organ damage. She is wheelchair bound and not expected to live much past forty. I used to play with her and was like a close uncle to her. I hardly see her any more and she is literally not in contact with anyone and is under care for depression. She almost died last February when she almost bled out due to blood thinners during her menses. I know kids do stupid things and this was one of them and it was her fault. Her life was over before it had a chance to get started. I just have a hard time with the drug thing because of it. I can't really give the argument a fair shake that it is due, because the bad side of the problem was too close to home for me.

my sympathies.

this problem has dropped off to nearly zero with a needle exchange program in San Francisco.  perhaps if we adopted this model nationally, say, 50 years ago, your friend's daughter would be alive and well today.  but, of course, since drug users are criminals, "enabling" them to use drugs in a more healthy way is impossible. 

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2014 9:24:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 18, 2014 9:14:11 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

My last surviving friend from the old school days has a daughter who is now thirty years old. When she was 19 she had a very bad blood infection from sharing needles and ended up with heart valve damage and other organ damage. She is wheelchair bound and not expected to live much past forty. I used to play with her and was like a close uncle to her. I hardly see her any more and she is literally not in contact with anyone and is under care for depression. She almost died last February when she almost bled out due to blood thinners during her menses. I know kids do stupid things and this was one of them and it was her fault. Her life was over before it had a chance to get started. I just have a hard time with the drug thing because of it. I can't really give the argument a fair shake that it is due, because the bad side of the problem was too close to home for me.

my sympathies.

this problem has dropped off to nearly zero with a needle exchange program in San Francisco.  perhaps if we adopted this model nationally, say, 50 years ago, your friend's daughter would be alive and well today.  but, of course, since drug users are criminals, "enabling" them to use drugs in a more healthy way is impossible. 

Agree that the needle program saves lives. She was doing heroin according to her toxicology tests. I have a hard time letting kids do heroin as much as giving them a bottle of oxycodone for use at their own discretion.