Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Qinella]

[Qinella]

[SHANE02]

[Hollywoodaction]

[flotsam]

[Woland]

[SPINOZA]

Woland - great post, but by no means the final word, I suspect. Perhaps it should be, because I'm becoming repetitive.

Flotsam,

Your contention that I clear the floor with verbiage and SHOUTING as opposed to genuinely destroy opponents with substance alone has caused uproar amongst all my blindly fanatical supporters. Violent demonstrations shall occur in response to that!

I have argued a solid enough case: prohibition demonstrably SUCKS! I have an alternative that I believe is well worth a shot and � somewhat ingeniously � any attempted refutation can only draw on prohibitionist evidence, which, whilst not quite vindicating the view it opposes, does rather tickle me. There is NO non-prohibitionist evidence available to any of us, but, unlike my opponents, I can offer suggestions as to how the destruction of health and society caused by heroin could potentially be lessened in a hypothetical, utopian society of the future where police time is not uncritically wasted, where heroin is taxed, regulated and dirt-cheap, where overdoses are dealt with more swiftly (lives saved) due to lack of criminal repercussions, where lives are not destroyed by heroin-related crime, where the prison populations are fewer and thus much cheaper for our poor, stupidity-strangulated societies. I can�t prove any of this will not lead to utter dystopia, but I make it well worth a try.

Since yours and Shane02�s views on all things heroin are the creatures of prohibitionist society, I fail to see any compelling reason why heroin is destructive per se to health. I�m well aware and have said that heroin has numerous adverse side-effects on the continuous user (not the one-off user, or first-time user), but the abject poverty and destruction of health and social squalor is clearly the result of heroin�s illegality and expense.

I have known relatively wealthy gear-heads. Generally, if one can afford other things besides heroin (which all your addicts cannot), such as food, one buys and consumes these things. I agree, Shane02, that hearty consumption of 3-square-meals-per-day on heroin is not possible. But eating less (a third of the average would be reasonable to a person who can afford it) is not life-threatening. There�s only so much smack one can do. A $100-per-day habit seems to be an average maximum.

I propose making heroin as cheap as cigarettes. Cigs kill literally millions per year, but banning cigarettes will quadruple their price and make addicts poorer, rather than reduce addicts' number.

Wealthy heroin-worshippers do not refuse nourishment, have time for other expenses like those connected with owning a home and having children, and an occupation, a pursuit, of some kind. However, the combination of addiction, illegality, sky-high black market prices, is a woeful combination and my view is if we remove abject poverty (caused by illegality and heroin thus being the domain of criminality) from the ghastly equation then we�d see a reduction in appalling social and health conditions caused by heroin.

I don�t consider myself a leftie, but I definitely believe in state ownership of certain issues. Dangerous, addictive drugs�..certainly one of them. The alternative � criminality � is too woeful in my opinion. Expensive, unnecessary, high-tax dreadfulness.

People often ask me (reasonably): if we legalized armed robbery, would we no longer have a problem with armed robbery? My answer is, of course, the problem would remain the same, since people who do armed robberies do them regardless of legality and the rest of us don�t wish to. But, since armed robbery is not an overly-expensive commodity on the black market which is ruinously expensive to all of society, on reflection, it�s a rubbish, totally rubbish, analogy.

EDIT: more paragraphs created

[flotsam]

As there is nothing much new there, my only comment until further developments warrant is this:

For Buddha's sake learn how to break your chest-pumping into smaller paragraphs. I know what you are doing, and it's working. I can barely make it halfway through your tirades...

Please. ^^

[SPINOZA]

[marrsy]

Ironically the Bayer aspirin company developed Heroin as a cure for morphine addicts - - they figured out later that heroin metastases into morphine when it hits the blood stream �

[SPINOZA]

Continue the War on Drugs? Just say no. Make heroin legal

[Qinella]

[flotsam]

Very long, not very well though out post, Q.

Responding to a call for control of substances by saying that you can't push points of views on others because it's either elitist or wackoist and this argument ignores other things (which I did not discuss) and therefore the only solution is...well, you never really made a statement, didja? You just kind of said you don't like other people telling you what to do, and "How would you like it??" Innit?

You missed three things:

1. Common sense.
2. The need for community education in reasoning and discourse so that the community member will be able to deliberate on the issues in changing circumstances. And then act on them, on an individual, case by case basis.
3. There are things that are just right. There are things that are just right that sometimes large segments of society disagree with. Again, the gun analogy. Your moral equivalencies that lead you to, I guess, argue that no ideals should be used to moderate society are rather weak. Because some people think this and some people think that, nobody can tell others what's best for them? No one can engage in discourse on how to manage these affairs? How do you plan on raising children? How do you plan on ever having a supervisory or guidance role at work or in your community? Do you really feel that everyone is equally qualified to facilitate community growth? Experience? Study? Diligence? These have nothing to do with qualifying someone to represent others?

Don't let your rabbit-hopping toward stretched metaphors cloud your vision, brah. I think that's what made you ill.