Convervatives

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1747343' date='Jan 9 2009, 03:01 PM']Heh... don't get me started about Canada's politics... I'll take the blue over the orange and red (and green), though we're getting a coalition of the latter.... [/quote]
I agree with you 100%. In fact when I'm able to start voting, I can't see myself voting for anyone else.
They're sure a lot better than our "socialists, seperatists", and however they labelled the equally deficient Liberals. Just plain lunatics, maybe?
...but no matter how much better they are, WOW! I'm disappointed that it's even possible for a government to avoid:
a) homosexual 'marriage'
b) abortion
c) euthanasia

for as ridiculously long as they have. Seriously. Stephen Harper may be an economist and 'tactician'. Fine, I think that's awesome in fact, but really, the government is about more than a strong economy and being 'tough on crime'.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Organized crime may exist until the Last Day, but surely its size and scope may be diminished? Also, comparisons with intrinsically immoral practices such as prostitution are not warranted. No drug is intrinsically evil; alcohol's abuse does not render alcohol evil. Perhaps you think prohibition was a good thing? Please, before anything else, reply to that simple question and explain your answer.[/quote]

Okay... in your previous post, you proposed that legalizing all drugs would "eliminate most (if not all) organized crime."

I would argue that most illegal drugs [i]are[/i] intrinsically evil. Can you explain how LSD and meth are intrinsically good? We're not talking about alcohol... that's child's play compared to this stuff.

No, I don't think Prohibition was a good idea. It denied the intrinsic goodness of alcohol while creating a situation for organized crime to thrive. Not to mention the thousands of local breweries across the country that were forced out of business, never to be seen again, which allowed Anheuser-Busch and their kin to drown us with their watery swill. It's not surprising that watered down theology follows the development of watered-down beer.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Again, which is better: large and unrestrained organized crime or small, hampered organized crime? Since there is a huge black market for bootlegged CDs and movies, should we make CDs and moves illegal? Please justify your answer.[/quote]

Again, music and movies and intrinsically good.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']That's simply false. It is not the drugs themselves that are more harmful, but rather it is precisely the fact that they are unregulated and unchecked that enables users to so easily abuse them. A person could also kill himself by means of drinking a fifth of Bacardi 151 or by popping Aspirin. It is not the thing itself, but its quantity ("dosage") and regulation that can be dangerous. What do you make of controlled pharmaceuticals? Again, as my post stated, you are going to have to pin down the logic that separates drugs into moral categories; you should know that a thing is bad or it isn't.[/quote]

Yes, alcohol is intrinsically good. It's the abuse of alcohol that must be controlled.

The difference between Bacardi 151 and most illegal drugs is shooting a single shot of 151 is not the least bit harmful to most people. Wine and medium-to-dark beers are actually healthy in moderation. But most illegal drugs are harmful even at the the smallest quantities. Do you know how meth is made?

As for pharmaceuticals, when taken appropriately for the proper symptoms, they are beneficial to our health. Again, it's the abuse of a good thing that must be controlled. LSD and meth are never good. If you ever take them at all, you are abusing the drug and your body.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Is that what the dictators tell their oppressed peoples? It could also mean that there are bogus laws that the sense of the people recognize as idiotic. Mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offenders cause our prisons to fill to capacity and cost unfathomable amounts of tax dollars. Is it really necessary?[/quote]

Yes, there are rehabilitation programs that can be more productive for society by turning criminals into productive members of society. It's also true that after being released from prison, many end up returning to crime because they can't get legitimate jobs with a record. But, all that is beside the point of this thread... but I concede your point here.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM'][i]Fifth, is it desireable for lethal drugs to be a major source of income for our government? That's something organized crime can use to promote their own ends. [/i]

Again, please define and logically defend your usage of the term "lethal" as compared to other available drugs over the counter in pharmacies and liquor stores.[/quote]

Lethal drugs are those that put the user's life at risk in any quantity.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']First of all, the cross - along with all of the Church's redemptive suffering won in it - is not downside to those who place our hope in the final victory; it is the very opposite, it is our triumph.[/quote]

Well... I think any kind of suffering, even when it is redeemed by the cross, is a "downside" or sacrifice. However, the redemption obviously far outweighs what we sacrifice, but that's a choice we have to make every day as we follow Christ while sojourning here.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Second, you ignored the context of my post. Please re-read it to correct yourself. I did not say that there was no downside to the legalization of drugs. So what, exactly, did I say?[/quote]

You said, "and I see no down-sides of which the same could not be said for alcohol and other drugs."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1747688' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:10 PM']Organized crime may exist until the Last Day, but surely its size and scope may be diminished? Also, comparisons with intrinsically immoral practices such as prostitution are not warranted. No drug is intrinsically evil; alcohol's abuse does not render alcohol evil. Perhaps you think prohibition was a good thing? Please, before anything else, reply to that simple question and explain your answer.



Again, which is better: large and unrestrained organized crime or small, hampered organized crime? Since there is a huge black market for bootlegged CDs and movies, should we make CDs and moves illegal? Please justify your answer.



That's simply false. It is not the drugs themselves that are more harmful, but rather it is precisely the fact that they are unregulated and unchecked that enables users to so easily abuse them. A person could also kill himself by means of drinking a fifth of Bacardi 151 or by popping Aspirin. It is not the thing itself, but its quantity ("dosage") and regulation that can be dangerous. What do you make of controlled pharmaceuticals? Again, as my post stated, you are going to have to pin down the logic that separates drugs into moral categories; you should know that a thing is bad or it isn't.



Is that what the dictators tell their oppressed peoples? It could also mean that there are bogus laws that the sense of the people recognize as idiotic. Mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug offenders cause our prisons to fill to capacity and cost unfathomable amounts of tax dollars. Is it really necessary?

[i]Fifth, is it desireable for lethal drugs to be a major source of income for our government? That's something organized crime can use to promote their own ends. [/i]

Again, please define and logically defend your usage of the term "lethal" as compared to other available drugs over the counter in pharmacies and liquor stores.



First of all, the cross - along with all of the Church's redemptive suffering won in it - is not downside to those who place our hope in the final victory; it is the very opposite, it is our triumph.

Second, you ignored the context of my post. Please re-read it to correct yourself. I did not say that there was no downside to the legalization of drugs. So what, exactly, did I say?[/quote]
Louisville dealt with this more thoroughly, but I cannot see [i]any[/i] good reason to legalize most illegal drugs. (I would even argue against marijuana, though there have been decent arguments both sides).

"Hard drugs" like crack cocaine, heroin, and meth are inherently deadly and destructive substances which serve [i]no[/i] good purpose. They cannot be "used in moderation" - and implying that they are essentially the same as alcohol or aspirin is blatantly false. Deliberately using or selling such harmful substances is just as immoral as prostitution.

To think that legalizing such substances would be a good thing for society shows a profound ignorance.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1748982' date='Jan 11 2009, 07:26 PM']Louisville dealt with this more thoroughly, but I cannot see [i]any[/i] good reason to legalize most illegal drugs. (I would even argue against marijuana, though there have been decent arguments both sides).

"Hard drugs" like crack cocaine, heroin, and meth are inherently deadly and destructive substances which serve [i]no[/i] good purpose. They cannot be "used in moderation" - and implying that they are essentially the same as alcohol or aspirin is blatantly false. Deliberately using or selling such harmful substances is just as immoral as prostitution.

To think that legalizing such substances would be a good thing for society shows a profound ignorance.[/quote]

[Ziggamafu]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the previous two posts that have challenged my position may be summarized as follows:

"'Hard' drugs are intrinsically evil and unable to be used in moderation and furthermore, in any quantity, pose reckless endangerment to life."

Okay. I will first point out that once again, this is a mere assertion and not a logical or factual demonstration of truth. If you can prove that illegal drugs are either:

a) intrinsically evil

or

b) gravely dangerous in any quantity or regulation

...then you will have proven me wrong. I have not called out for the reckless legalization of the so-called "hard" drugs as they are currently marketed. I have rather suggested that legalization would achieve precisely the kind of control and regulation necessary to curb abuse (and, happily, eliminate a majority of organized crime in the process). My assertion was, amusingly enough, not directly challenged. Yours seems to be the only contended assertion and it is therefore incumbent upon you to provide proof of your assertion. You say that the drugs [i]themselves [/i]are "intrinsically evil" and gravely dangerous in [i]any amount or form[/i]; and I call bull. Prove it.

It seems self-evident that legalization would almost certainly provide:

1. assurance of purity under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
3. virtual obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
4. virtual obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
5. savings in expensive enforcement and
6. significant tax revenues

(The above list was more or less lifted - with the liberty of a few edits - from: [url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm)"]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm)[/url]

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1749202' date='Jan 11 2009, 11:58 PM']Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the previous two posts that have challenged my position may be summarized as follows:

"'Hard' drugs are intrinsically evil and unable to be used in moderation and furthermore, in any quantity, pose reckless endangerment to life."[/quote]

I also asked you some specific questions that went ignored.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1749202' date='Jan 11 2009, 11:58 PM']Okay. I will first point out that once again, this is a mere assertion and not a logical or factual demonstration of truth. If you can prove that illegal drugs are either:

a) intrinsically evil

or

b) gravely dangerous in any quantity or regulation

...then you will have proven me wrong.[/quote]

[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html"]Marijuana[/url]: "Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off."

[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/cocaine.html"]Crack cocaine[/url]: "Regardless of how or how frequently cocaine is used, a user can experience acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, such as a heart attack or stroke, which may cause sudden death. Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizure followed by respiratory arrest."

[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html"]Heroin[/url]: "Heroin enters the brain, where it is converted to morphine and binds to receptors ... important for automatic processes critical for life, such as breathing, blood pressure, and arousal."

"With regular heroin use, tolerance develops. This means the abuser must use more heroin to achieve the same intensity of effect. Eventually, chemical changes in the brain can lead to addiction."

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1749202' date='Jan 11 2009, 11:58 PM']I have not called out for the reckless legalization of the so-called "hard" drugs as they are currently marketed. I have rather suggested that legalization would achieve precisely the kind of control and regulation necessary to curb abuse (and, happily, eliminate a majority of organized crime in the process). My assertion was, amusingly enough, not directly challenged. Yours seems to be the only contended assertion and it is therefore incumbent upon you to provide proof of your assertion. You say that the drugs [i]themselves [/i]are "intrinsically evil" and gravely dangerous in [i]any amount or form[/i]; and I call bull. Prove it.[/quote]

The web site you linked to focuses on marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. These are probably the tamest of illegal drugs. I'll grant you that these specific drugs, especially marijuana, can be taken in a disciplined manner (the user would need to be a very well disciplined individual) in order to avoid increasing the dosages and frequency. But, knowing what cocaine and heroine do to the body, it's difficult to imagine what benefits are worth those risks.

I can see the very moderate consumption of quality marijuana at least being neutral to one's health and I have no problem with that. I don't pretend that my occasional pipe or cigar provides any health benefits, but I smoke them for the same reason others enjoy their occasional blunt or bong. Of course, it's still illegal, and there's no getting around that fact unless the laws change (granted, I did have some moonshine at a Christmas party a few weeks ago... gotta love Kentucky )

You can read about other drugs [url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/InfofaxIndex.html"]here[/url] and decide for yourself. Many of these drugs should be described as illicit rather than illegal because they are legal in limited and small doses for medical or veterinary use. For that matter, the most popular category of illicit drugs among 8th graders [url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/inhalants.html"]is completely legal[/url].

I think the case you have to make is what would be effectively changed by the legalization and strict regulation of these drugs?

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1749202' date='Jan 11 2009, 11:58 PM']It seems self-evident that legalization would almost certainly provide:

1. assurance of purity under Food and Drug Administration regulation;
2. labeled concentration of the product (to avoid overdose);
3. virtual obliteration of vigorous marketing ("pushers");
4. virtual obliteration of drug crime and reduction of theft crime
5. savings in expensive enforcement and
6. significant tax revenues

(The above list was more or less lifted - with the liberty of a few edits - from: [url="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm)"]http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm)[/url][/quote]

Again, the basic point I was making is that every argument has two or more sides. Have you sought out the arguments against legalization? If all these benefits actually would be realized (as with any hypothetical scenario, the benefits are probably unrealistic), what would be the costs? There is a cost somewhere. Everything has a cost. Anytime someone is proposing an idea to you with pie-in-the-sky benefits and no sacrifices, you need to be very suspicious.

Edited January 12, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1749327' date='Jan 12 2009, 01:22 AM']I also asked you some specific questions that went ignored.



[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html"]Marijuana[/url]: "Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off."

[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/cocaine.html"]Crack cocaine[/url]: "Regardless of how or how frequently cocaine is used, a user can experience acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, such as a heart attack or stroke, which may cause sudden death. Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizure followed by respiratory arrest."

[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html"]Heroin[/url]: "Heroin enters the brain, where it is converted to morphine and binds to receptors ... important for automatic processes critical for life, such as breathing, blood pressure, and arousal."

"With regular heroin use, tolerance develops. This means the abuser must use more heroin to achieve the same intensity of effect. Eventually, chemical changes in the brain can lead to addiction."



The web site you linked to focuses on marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. These are probably the tamest of illegal drugs. I'll grant you that these specific drugs, especially marijuana, can be taken in a disciplined manner (the user would need to be a very well disciplined individual) in order to avoid increasing the dosages and frequency. But, knowing what cocaine and heroine do to the body, it's difficult to imagine what benefits are worth those risks.

I can see the very moderate consumption of quality marijuana at least being neutral to one's health and I have no problem with that. I don't pretend that my occasional pipe or cigar provides any health benefits, but I smoke them for the same reason others enjoy their occasional blunt or bong. Of course, it's still illegal, and there's no getting around that fact unless the laws change (granted, I did have some moonshine at a Christmas party a few weeks ago... gotta love Kentucky )

You can read about other drugs [url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/InfofaxIndex.html"]here[/url] and decide for yourself. Many of these drugs should be described as illicit rather than illegal because they are legal in limited and small doses for medical or veterinary use. For that matter, the most popular category of illicit drugs among 8th graders [url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/inhalants.html"]is completely legal[/url].

I think the case you have to make is what would be effectively changed by the legalization and strict regulation of these drugs?



Again, the basic point I was making is that every argument has two or more sides. Have you sought out the arguments against legalization? If all these benefits actually would be realized (as with any hypothetical scenario, the benefits are probably unrealistic), what would be the costs? There is a cost somewhere. Everything has a cost. Anytime someone is proposing an idea to you with pie-in-the-sky benefits and no sacrifices, you need to be very suspicious.[/quote]

First thing's first. I have seemed blind before, but the only "specific questions" that I see upon reviewing your previous posts are:

[quote]Can you explain how LSD and meth are intrinsically good?

Do you know how meth is made?[/quote]

The second question seemed rhetorical. The first question seemed an embarrassing mistake on your part. But very well, here are your answers:

1. Of course not. Nowhere have I argued that any [i]thing [/i]is intrinsically good. There are intrinsically good actions. There are intrinsically good persons. Man-made things can only, of themselves, be morally neutral (thought experiments involving the moral principle of double-effect are often dependent on this). This of course highlights the moral fact that it is not the thing itself but how it is or is not used that poses a moral threat. Moral threats are the byproducts of consciousness, not inanimate objects.

There are innumerable paths to eternal Hell via the genitals. And even "small" usage - if not under the regulation of marriage - can pose a grave spiritual threat (even chronic addiction). People rape under the control of genital addiction. People kill for the same reasons. Children are scarred for life, people are enslaved, marriages are destroyed, families broken, and national morality devastated by sins directly related to the genitals. Etc. In one sense, then, hard drugs are more dangerous in that they can be lethal in and of themselves. Yet in multiple other senses, it is highly arguable that sexual sins are "more dangerous" in regards to their more numerous and complex spiritual and societal threats.

2. Before you asked, I only had a general knowledge that it was highly dangerous - both for anyone living in the same house of the lab and for the environment - though admittedly, I had never actually read up on the subject. I just googled it and quickly lost interest. I don't see how this is not further evidence of how many problems (specifically those in relation to your question) would be virtually eliminated by controlled legalization, production, and regulation.

Okay, those were the unanswered questions.

Now, about your last post. Have you ever looked into some of the bizarrely serious side-effects currently legal prescription medications have on their users? Some of them can sometimes even be lethal (and that's with controlled regulation). I once again see no downsides of which the same could not be said for many currently legal drugs. There are downsides, yes, but with regards to what I have proposed the downsides are no more numerous than current downsides in regulated drugs. And indeed the upsides seem to be almost entirely ignored by your posts. It would seem unfathomable how someone could say that the predicted positive outcome would be anything less than exceedingly probable.

Finally, I find it dubious - to say the least - that any given drug would pose a grave threat of addiction and / or death in all peoples (again, I would bring up a comparison with those who consume alcohol or other legal drugs; the effects and dangers vary from person to person) regardless of dosages, purity, and overall substance control by the FDA and government. It seems as utterly moronic as saying that a tiny bit of morphine prescribed by a doctor is as gravely dangerous as some kind of home-made morphine taken in large quantities. Absurd.