I fully recognise that this should be so, but even if you apply it to my question "you say manufacturing and distributing narcotics is not legally worse than using them?", it just proves the point I was making about guns not being relevant.
You are considering the problem as if all drug production was legal already, which it clearly is not. I am trying to highlight here the problems with getting from A: the current situation, to B: Happy Shining Sing-Song World.
I am not describing a rigid (B) situation where nothing works properly because of bad methodology.
You have failed to state that you do not find hippos sexually attractive. Shall I assume then that you do? Maybe not.
I have no interest in debating the morality of laws or which drugs "I think" should be legal and which not. Again, I have consistently tried only to highlight issues with the vague and wooly "legalise drugs" plan and the only reason we're still arguing is because you won't accept anything in your head might be wrong, or contingent on a factor you haven't considered.
Your faith in the system after describing it in that way is just disturbing.
And yeah, like nothing was ever sold without FDA approval.
What, the sane people? As opposed to the mad ones who blame the drugs themselves for society's problems? Are you serious?
A violation of rights? So you're saying that it's better to let people find their own way with drugs, even if they end up dying in an alley with festering abcesses in their track-ridden arms and skin hanging off their starved frames, because their rights won't have been violated? How naive are you? Did it occur to you some people need and even want these decisions to be made for them?
And exactly what makes you so sure that you have the right idea, and everybody else is wrong?
Given enough time and coffee I could use your logic to dismiss every law in the US as being a violation of somebody's rights, and by the same logic that would make them repealable. Clearly that is a very silly thing.
And for the last time, I have no reason to prove or even demonstrate either way whether or not alcohol or nicotine should be legal, as they are not relevant to the issues I am raising.
They are only relevant to the issues you want to argue with me about, and I will not be drawn into that.
Where did you illustrate that? Was it when you mentioned the FDA that time? You know, when you said "the FDA can approve products as it sees fit". Yeah, that was illustration all right. Cleared up that whole pesky issue of "how regulation will work".
By the way, the fact that you carefully glossed over FDA approval pretty much being voluntary to the people who manage to produce drugs without it already and with the added pressure of operating outside the law did not pass me by unnoticed.
I do agree that some sort of system for controlling what gets used, and how, is going to be much better than just locking people up for 'offences' (although controlling what gets used and when is clearly one of your "violations of rights"). However, all my points are being made to draw attention to the reasons it's not happened yet and it's a little difficult to make those points when you're bashing me over the head constantly with a big WRONGNESS MALLET.
I've seen it happen. It goes on all the time, you naive child. Somehow I think the chap I watched (this was on TV last night, btw) being blown away by a cop while trapped - unarmed - in a stationary vehicle by police cruisers would have something to say about his "individual rights being compromised" if he still had a head to speak out of.
It most certainly is, and you even demonstrated why yourself:
Huzzah! A breakthrough! You actually do understand that different circumstances dictate different responses. I guess then it follows that you also understand that the reports you were originally talking about might actually not be the ones I was talking about, particularly since - shock horror - I brought up the subject of "Reported Use" in this thread [Reply 26] and by reply 32 you were making sweeping statements about my complete wrongness without even bothering to ask what I was talking about first.
I even plainly stated in the next reply that there was "a difference between 'reported use' and 'reported use'", but no - on and on the fafalone Crusading Juggernaut of Rightness goes.
Considering the facts that you:
1) Are arguing over something you actually said "I really don't get the point you're trying to make" about,
2) Are trying to mould my points into some debate you seem to want to have, but which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about,
3) Failed to apologise for calling me an ignorant cretin even after I apologised just on the off chance that I had offended you,
4) Disregarded my helpful apology reminder with your incredddddible moral superiority,
5) Ignored Dudde's splendid and relevant points because you were too busy hitting me with the bashing mallet
... one might come to the conclusion that you are just trolling. Maybe you don't even realise it. It really really sounds like you just want to whip it out and see whose is biggest, and frankly I've had quite enough of trying to make the best of a crappy discussion.
No doubt your mighty brain will instruct you to say something clever like "then I will interpret that as you forfeiting, thus I WIN", and you'll never bother to examine why this was a complete waste of your time or mine.
