$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TommyJefferson', 'A')ny argument from Principle must include every possibility. If exceptions can be show to an Argument from Principle, the argument is not valid.
The argument from principle against drug prohibition must include situations where an individual does indeed cripple themselves with drug abuse. The principle must remain valid in those situations, or it fails.
PeakOil is You
THE "War on Drugs" Thread (merged)
Re: Wars on Drugs
by TWilliam » Sat 13 Dec 2008, 16:19:40
Yes yes, of course. The way you stated it strongly implied that using drugs was somehow always a detriment, and that was what I was taking exception to. Certainly there are a minority of cases where it clearly is, and this is when the term abuse applies. The thing is, the anti-drug propagandists trumpet these statistically rare incidences as the norm rather than the exception, and it is this false perception upon which they build their entire case.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HeckuvaJob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') cannot get over how F---- dumb the pro-drug lobby is? Drug dealers are not peddling open source software to better humanity. They are selling drugs because of the profit margin between illicit and legal drugs. If Mary Jane and hash were legal then they would be forced to sell, well, crack. If not crack then heroine. What the hell are wrong with you people? Give your head a shake and think for a change. Duh!
Ignorance is also a major obstacle. Thank you for [s]pointing that out[/s] illustrating that, MrBill.
Fixed that for you, Heck...
The idea that making so-called 'soft' drugs readily available through legalization would lead to an increase in the demand for 'harder' drugs is anti-drug propaganda, as is the idea that demand in general would increase exponentially. Firstly, the majority of people that use illicit drugs do so in a responsible manner, and when given a choice will opt for those drugs that provide the desired positive effects while minimizing the potential negatives. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that in times when cannabis for example is readily available, demand for all other harder drugs drops, even if they are just as readily available, while shortages of it lead to an increase in demand for those others if they remain relatively abundant.
As far as an 'exponential increase' in demand if drugs were legalized, that idea is also propaganda. The fact is that most people with the desire for drugs already find the means to obtain them, illegality notwithstanding. Prohibition did little to curb the public's demand for alchohol, and drug prohibition is likewise largely ineffective.
Here's a great site with tons of research citations on just about every aspect of the 'War on Drugs'...
http://www.drugwarfacts.org
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
-
TWilliam - Expert
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Re: Wars on Drugs
by TommyJefferson » Sat 13 Dec 2008, 16:31:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TommyJefferson', 'T')he thing is, the anti-drug propagandists trumpet these statistically rare incidences as the norm rather than the exception, and it is this false perception upon which they build their entire case.
Correct.
They are arguing from effect, not from principle.
If they want to argue from effect, they should show the drug abuse would cause more misery and suffering than is created by drug prohibition. I, like you, believe that it would not.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
-
TommyJefferson - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Texas and Los Angeles
, is to actually make the argument that you're planning on becoming the next UK version of:
