News Stories

[Smithj]

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/...64/detail.html

When you take a last stand, you're meant to die. This guy is going to a world of pain.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Look, I'm pro-government intervention in plenty of things, but those things are usually the ones regulating actions done by individuals which harm other individuals. Doing something that harms only yourself, as long as you have full knowledge of such a harm (and that is the government's responsibility of teaching you, through public schooling) should be perfectly fine. Whether or not you are prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions is something that the government should grant, as I said, through public schooling--as long as you know what happens with your body when you consume such a substance, you are prepared to deal with the consequences.

Except even when people know the possible side effects and decide to take the drug anyway, they often aren't prepared to deal with the consequences. Many think that it simply won't happen to them. After all, only weak willed people get addicted to drugs. They just want to get high. Not to mention if they want to quit in many cases it will require medical treatment. Further, there's always the chance that while they're high they might harm other people. Drug use can effect more than just yourself.

Shouldn't we also try to ban extreme sports from your point of view? I mean, they probably kill as many people as hard drugs do, and adrenaline rushes can be considered addictive from a physiological standpoint.

Red herring and strawman.

PS: There is a world of difference between "addiction" and "dependency", though you seem to claim that the former implies the latter--that is definitely not true.

The simple fact is most hard drugs have been scientificly proven to cause dependency, and that is what most people mean when they use the term addiction. Do you have a point here beyond sementics?

[mg1942]

great... another USA shoooting spree
http://news.aol.com/article/binghamt...3155?icid=main
The shooter in his early 40s just got laid off from IBM, starts shooting at a citizenship testing center.... wonder who he found sitting at his desk at IBM?
Betya he got outsourced.

[WanderingKnight]

Except even when people know the possible side effects and decide to take the drug anyway, they often aren't prepared to deal with the consequences. Many think that it simply won't happen to them. After all, only weak willed people get addicted to drugs. They just want to get high. Not to mention if they want to quit in many cases it will require medical treatment.

If they know what they're submitting themselves to, they are fully qualified to take responsibility for their actions. That's what means facing the consequences: Taking the responsibility for the fact that they might have screwed their life forever. But that only happens with knowledge of the situation at hand, which is unfortunately something many people (especially the poor, the most affected by drug trade and abuse) don't grasp.

Drug use can effect more than just yourself.

The key concept being here "indirectly affect". In which case, other mechanisms of law come into action (laws against violence, etc).

Red herring and strawman.

First, you don't seem to know what a red herring is. Second, how about you prove it's a strawman instead of just shouting the word? (Oh, right, I forgot we're on the internet).

Extreme sports can kill you, the feeling of being near death releases adrenaline. Adrenaline rushes can and do become addictive--thus statistically leading extreme sportspeople towards their death. It's the same argument you're using against drugs.

Not to mention that legalizing drugs would take care of the violence caused by illegal drug trade. But heck, many governments have a stake on drug traffic, so... *shrug*

The simple fact is most hard drugs have been scientificly proven to cause dependency, and that is what most people mean when they use the term addiction.

Huh, is that so? How can you back it up?

Do you have a point here beyond sementics?

A huge one. Addiction does not mean dependency. Dependency means your body has reached a point where it can't live without the drug anymore, so if you stop consuming it, without medical treatment you will probably die.

Nicotine withdrawal doesn't kill you. Cannabinoid withdrawal doesn't kill you. Even cocaine withdrawal doesn't kill you.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Look, I'm pro-government intervention in plenty of things, but those things are usually the ones regulating actions done by individuals which harm other individuals. Doing something that harms only yourself, as long as you have full knowledge of such a harm (and that is the government's responsibility of teaching you, through public schooling) should be perfectly fine. Whether or not you are prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions is something that the government should grant, as I said, through public schooling--as long as you know what happens with your body when you consume such a substance, you are prepared to deal with the consequences.

Shouldn't we also try to ban extreme sports from your point of view? I mean, they probably kill as many people as hard drugs do, and adrenaline rushes can be considered addictive from a physiological standpoint.

PS: There is a world of difference between "addiction" and "dependency", though you seem to claim that the former implies the latter--that is definitely not true.

The *social* argument is that such a person blows through their resources and then begins stealing from others and harming other people (family, strangers, etc). So it is in society's interest to regulate this...

... that said, our government's decision to make it illegal and punishable rather than treatable (and its failure to avoid the environment conditions that encourage usage) isn't particularly intelligent.

Legalization, regulation, taxation, and treatment would cut the feet out from under the whole cartel mess.

[SeedFreedom]

If someone wants to pump a hell lot of drugs into their system, as long as there are laws and police to stop them from hurting others while they do this, why should you care and ban it, especially in the US where healthcare is self-paid. As mentioned, there are tons of things that are dangerous and bad for you, and cigarettes and gambling are just as addicting. I understand why countries with free healthcare don't want legalized drugs because its straining the budget, but if these people are paying for themselves then there's no problem.

[WanderingKnight]

The *social* argument is that such a person blows through their resources and then begins stealing from others and harming other people (family, strangers, etc). So it is in society's interest to regulate this...

... that said, our government's decision to make it illegal and punishable rather than treatable (and its failure to avoid the environment conditions that encourage usage) isn't particularly intelligent.

Or preventable. Banning them certainly doesn't prevent their abuse. Consciousness about the dangers of certain drugs does.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Except even when people know the possible side effects and decide to take the drug anyway, they often aren't prepared to deal with the consequences. Many think that it simply won't happen to them. After all, only weak willed people get addicted to drugs. They just want to get high. Not to mention if they want to quit in many cases it will require medical treatment. Further, there's always the chance that while they're high they might harm other people. Drug use can effect more than just yourself.


Red herring and strawman.



The simple fact is most hard drugs have been scientificly proven to cause dependency, and that is what most people mean when they use the term addiction. Do you have a point here beyond sementics?

it is no different then alcohol. Some people will can have a few drinks and not be addicted and some will be addicted after the first drink. As for indirect effect form alcohol abuse, we got laws for that. If you drink and drive you lose your license.

Prohibation for Alcohol in the 1920's didn't work
War on Drugs in the last 30 years hasn't work either.

Legalize, Tax it and Regulate it.

[WanderingKnight]

I love these guys.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

If they know what they're submitting themselves to, they are fully qualified to take responsibility for their actions. That's what means facing the consequences: Taking the responsibility for the fact that they might have screwed their life forever. But that only happens with knowledge of the situation at hand, which is unfortunately something many people (especially the poor, the most affected by drug trade and abuse) don't grasp.

Yet people have this education and still choose to take drugs. If knowledge of the side effects isn't enough, knowledge of a fine and having to do community service may tip the balance. Further there is still a social price to pay. Look at what opium did to china after they were forced to legalize it following the second opium war.

The key concept being here "indirectly affect". In which case, other mechanisms of law come into action (laws against violence, etc).

Which doesn't address the costs of treating the addict.

First, you don't seem to know what a red herring is. Second, how about you prove it's a strawman instead of just shouting the word? (Oh, right, I forgot we're on the internet).

A red herring is something that has no relation to the debate at hand, like your citing of extreme sports, so yeah I think I know exactly what it is. Also nice ad hominin there. (Asserting I don't know the meaning of red herring to defend your use of it, just in case you decide to try this tactic of demanding I prove your logical fallacy again) As for the strawman part, you think it might be the whole misrepresenting my arguement to state a position you think I should have about a completely unrelated subject.

Extreme sports can kill you, the feeling of being near death releases adrenaline. Adrenaline rushes can and do become addictive--thus statistically leading extreme sportspeople towards their death. It's the same argument you're using against drugs.

Are they taking a outside chemical substance to alter their mental state? No. Once again this is a red herring.

Not to mention that legalizing drugs would take care of the violence caused by illegal drug trade. But heck, many governments have a stake on drug traffic, so... *shrug*

Yes it would. However, the social problems it'd cause would in my opinion be even worse.

Huh, is that so? How can you back it up?

How can I back it up? There have been studies published on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine..._of_Dependence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Addiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Pharmacology

The meth one isn't that well sourced, but the other two are.

A huge one. Addiction does not mean dependency. Dependency means your body has reached a point where it can't live without the drug anymore, so if you stop consuming it, without medical treatment you will probably die.

Except that it well... doesn't. It means you're at the point where if you stop taking it you'll experience withdrawl. You can become dependent on caffeine. It's withdrawl symptoms are rather mild as drugs go, but they are noticable.

Nicotine withdrawal doesn't kill you. Cannabinoid withdrawal doesn't kill you. Even cocaine withdrawal doesn't kill you.

I should hope not, especially for marijuana since it's withdrawl symptoms are about on par with caffeine and only occurs with very heavy use.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

it is no different then alcohol. Some people will can have a few drinks and not be addicted and some will be addicted after the first drink. As for indirect effect form alcohol abuse, we got laws for that. If you drink and drive you lose your license.

Prohibation for Alcohol in the 1920's didn't work
War on Drugs in the last 30 years hasn't work either.

Legalize, Tax it and Regulate it.

Oh, I'm all for legalizing things like marijuana as long as alchohol is legal. Great way to raise tax money and a lot more effective. Hard drugs though have much more severe side effects. Since alchohol is already legal, I'd say it represents a good cutoff point. The benefits of legalizing them simply don't outweight the risks. Since alchohol is already legal, I'd say it represents a good cutoff point. Though I agree that the whole war on drugs thing has been grossly mismanaged.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Oh, I'm all for legalizing things like marijuana as long as alchohol is legal.

Then? Are you going to lock them up while they are using those, and until they get rid of it from their systems in a way to not create any danger for other people.
There is a reason why people doing regular things like driving under influence have been punished severely. Even though their actions may not result in a death. Of course, no one would care if the person under influence would kill himself/herself. But, the main problem has always been their impact on other people.
And, of course, if you legalize it how will you prevent the kids accessing/using them. Especially if you cannot even prevent kids using alcohol right now. Though, I would not mind seeing how the scenario would play in real life, with its actual impact on the society (a free access to guns and marijuana to emotionally undeveloped kids).

By the way when you talk about legalizing access to those substances, how many people are we referring to? 100 thousand, 1 million, 10 million, etc...

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Then? Are you going to lock them up while they are using those, and until they get rid of it from their systems in a way to not create any danger for other people.
There is a reason why people doing regular things like driving under influence have been punished severely. Even though their actions may not result in a death. Of course, no one would care if the person under influence would kill himself/herself. But, the main problem has always been their impact on other people.
And, of course, if you legalize it how will you prevent the kids accessing/using them. Especially if you cannot even prevent kids using alcohol right now. Though, I would not mind seeing how the scenario would play in real life, with its actual impact on the society (a free access to guns and marijuana to emotionally undeveloped kids).

By the way when you talk about legalizing access to those substances, how many people are we referring to? 100 thousand, 1 million, 10 million, etc...

You know you've either got a moderate position or are completely nuts when people on both sides of the debate disagree with you.

Anyway, I'm not sure why legalizing marijuana would have any effects that alchohol wouldn't. The regulations that are in place for alchohol might not be a stunning success at mitigating it's disruptive effects on society, but they're not a complete and total failure either. I don't see why similar regulations for legalized marijuana would fail any more than the ones for alchohol do.

As for number of people, Wikipedia has US consumption of marijuana at 12.6% of people 15-64 in 2004. So at a very rough estimate based on that figure and assuming a total population of 300 million and 65% being in that age range, neither of which are based on anything besides sounding good, we'd be talking about 25 million people.

[Sazelyt]

Glad to have learned that I am nuts.

Anyways. The question you may want to ask is whether you can justify the negative results caused by that legalization. You cannot do anything about alcohol at this moment. The best you can do is to increase the punishments even further (though that may mean increasing the prisons' capacity by at least tenfold). But, that is all. Even the best regulations that people have come up are still not enough to prevent its dangers. That is almost like a guarantee that you will also fail in regulating other substances' usage, and people's access to those substances. In such a case, you really need to provide the public with every guarantees, and let them know why these will succeed despite the ones used for alcohol consumption did not. But, giving the example of alcohol in a positive manner to legalize those substances' usage does not seem like a good approach to persuade people like me.

Oh, and I am amazed at that 25 million people stats. Especially if it is being consumed despite it being considered as illegal. The irony would be those people representing the people who are swearing on the banking people because they also crossed the legal boundaries. Sweet temptations...

[WanderingKnight]

Which doesn't address the costs of treating the addict.

Oh, I guess I should also take into account the ongoing costs, both in lives lost to illegal drug trade crime and money to the "War on Drugs", right? 20 billion dollars per year in the US alone.

A red herring is something that has no relation to the debate at hand, like your citing of extreme sports, so yeah I think I know exactly what it is.

No, it's not a red herring. If it were, I would be diverting my attention fully to extreme sports. In any case, the only thing it might be is a flawed analogy. Stop invoking fallacies just because it makes you feel you know something about logic.

As for the strawman part, you think it might be the whole misrepresenting my arguement to state a position you think I should have about a completely unrelated subject.

Why don't you prove I'm misrepresenting your argument? All the reasons you've given me to ban drugs can be equally used to ban extreme sports. You don't like thinking about such possibility because extreme sports don't get such bad rep (and because they're also a big business).

Are they taking a outside chemical substance to alter their mental state? No. Once again this is a red herring.

Umm, you know that all drugs do is play with your own body's secretion of substances? Extreme fear and anxiety are as valid an outside element as any drug. Just because you put nothing into your body doesn't make it any different from your "moral standpoint" (and if it does, I find your moral integrity laughable).

How can I back it up? There have been studies published on the subject.

From your first Wikipedia link:

The risk[1] of becoming cocaine-dependent within 2 years of first use (recent-onset) is 5-6%; after 10 years, it's 15-16%.

Seems pretty small to me.

And I didn't mention either heroin or meth because those do suck. They have a pretty high chance of making your body dependent. It doesn't mean you can claim all drugs completely suck you dry.

By the way, in no way I am advocating cocaine consumption. I absolutely abhor cocaine not only because it does a very good job at making you addicted, but because the effect itself seems rather pointless to me. But I'm not going to ban it because I don't like it (though I will try to persuade my friends not to take it).

Though I agree that the whole war on drugs thing has been grossly mismanaged.

Mismanaged? Couldn't it be because it doesn't make fucking sense in the first place?

Legalize the damn thing. You'll see violent crime over drug trade down. Regulate it. You'll see the number of deaths due to consumption of toxic side products go down. Educate. You'll see the number of people choosing to consume hard drugs go down.

Anything else does nothing other than perpetuate the multimillionaire business that is the illegal drug market.

[Sazelyt]

If the drug lords have a little bit of intelligence, they will know how to stir the public to oppose that, even if it was legalized in the first place. It should not be that difficult to exploit the resulting policies, and transferring the violence towards the legal side. Also, I wonder what the bored and penniless drug gangs with nothing to do will do with all the free time and good amount of guns in their hands. Maybe, they will be hired by the police department to organize the legal drug sell.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

If the drug lords have a little bit of intelligence, they will know how to stir the public to oppose that, even if it was legalized in the first place. It should not be that difficult to exploit the resulting policies, and transferring the violence towards the legal side. Also, I wonder what the bored and penniless drug gangs with nothing to do will do with all the free time and good amount of guns in their hands. Maybe, they will be hired by the police department to organize the legal drug sell.

...

......

You are saying this ironically, right? Right?

[ClockWorkAngel]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I love these guys.

Yea, they're quite a great pair.

Legalize drugs, sure drugs are terrible, but the black market that's been created from it, is just terrible.

I believe there was a place in the UK, that had a program for Heroin addicts. An addict would bring in a cigarette a day and have it injected with very pure, clean Heroin. The result? The crime from the Heroin trade in that location was decimated, because really, what are you doing to do? Pay for Heroin that might just be cement, or free pure Heroin from the government? The addicts could lead normal productive lives, and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from another smoker. This information I've only heard from my teacher, I can't really say that's its a legitamite, but I believe that its a probably accurate repersentation of what's possible.

Really, just allow people to learn by themselves, and if neccessary get appropriate help.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

Really, just allow people to learn by themselves, and if neccessary get appropriate help.

I am a law student and I want to express my point of view since it's a common topics between teacher and students here.

Two reasons among some of why many people don't put alcohol, cigarettes and drugs (even marijuana) in the same bag?

- Because a cigarette has not some of the very bad instant effects that the drugs have or "can" have on a "certain" number of people (including majiuana. Examples for the majuana: modification of the immediate memory. False perception of time. All of that during the time when the effect of the drugs is in use, and sometimes even after that. I don't even talk about the bad effects of cocaine). The problem is not only to try to protect the people and their own body, it's also to prevent said people to do bad things to other persons while under the effects of drugs. I did see myself in highschool and in college how far it can go (people who don't remember what they did during the last night for instance. The problem? They could have harmed someone else, and they don't even remember)

- Because alcohol is not only for people who wants to become drunk. If a normal adult drinks one little glass of wine or beer, he/she will likely not be drunk and not have any immediate bad effect on his/her senses and behaviors. I can also add, that now in France, it's forbidden to sell alcohol to people under 18. It's not perfect thought, but it's still something that many parents actually appreciated here in France.


It's all about protecting the people. And not only the one who take drugs but also the one who could be harmed because the former are not in their "normal" state when under the effect of drugs even if they take it only once. So No, I disagree with your statement about letting people learn by themselves since there's a risk that they could harm other people by just smoking marijuana once, or taking drugs once. There's still some works to do about alcohol (for example, to not see alcohol as one entity, but to differentiate wine and vodka, for instance), I agree, but you can't compare cigarettes and alcohol to drugs just like that.

[LeoXiao]

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...53405120090405

North Korea launched its missile. It went over japan without incident

[Shadow Kira01]

N. Korea launches 'satellite' despite international pressure

North Korea finally launches the rocket..

I can't believe that North Korea is acting that way, considering that they are the ones declaring an act of aggression, yet they are going to say things the other way around if any nations dare to take their rocket launch to the UNSC.

Seriously...?