AME-359 - New drug could help beat cocaine addiction ??

flick flick at starband.net
Tue Jul 22 10:11:35 EST 2003


"Richard Schimelfenig" <DHempman at nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4bTa.25406$7O.2953 at nwrdny01.gnilink.net...

>
> And, it is not nbecesary for anyone to get your permission. It is none of
your
> business. But, that is not what Eric was refering to.

it's against the law.

> But, your complicity in prohibition is what makes cocaine's price higher
than
> it would be in a regulated market.  THAT is what Eric was saying.

too bad.  i don't feel under any obligation to legalize cocaine so people
can pay less to use more.

> That is not what he said. What he did say is that it is none of your
business,
> and that prohibition drives the price beyond that which it would be in a
> properly regulated markey.

like that other guy said, this isn't all about you, you, you.  it's about
All Of Us.   the minority - people who want all drugs to be legal - don't
get to dictate to the majority here in America.

i could care less if coke addicts find their playtoy expensive.  if they
want to quit, i'm happy to pay the taxes that support treatment.  but i will
not supply them with their drug or make it cheaper and easier for them to
use.

> But, your complicity in prohibition is responsible for driving the black
> market, which causes prices to be significantly greater than they would be
in a
> properly regulated market. That is the source of crime.

complicity is such a nasty-sounding word, which is why you use it.

the majority of Americans do not want cocaine, heroin, meth and all that
other rot to be legal.

not so cokeheads can buy more coke with less money.

the expense isn't the source of most drug-related crime.  most of that crime
is people who are HIGH ON DRUGS, loaded and looney, and not committing
crimes to buy the crap.

> No one has said anything about it being "OK" to do. What has been said is
that
> it is really none of your business, and that your complicity in
prohibition is
> the driving force behind the black market.

sure sounds like it, when your side keep spouting, "It's dangerous because
it's illegal."  to imply if it was legal, it would be safe.  you don't get
any points in honesty from me.

IT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS.

it ain't a secret that a coke habit is expensive or dangerous.  hasn't been
a secret for decades.  i'm not the criminal that enticed them to try it with
a cheap sample.  i don't feel an obligation to legalize coke so that it can
be cheaper (doubtful it would be) so that addicts can stretch their drug
dollars.  they made an extremely irresponsible decision, against lots of
good, learned advice, given out of COMPASSION AND CARING, and out of the
wish not to see them repeat mistakes that others have made in the past.

I'll pay taxes to fund treatment if they want to quit.

> Whether is is "bad" or not is a relative thing. I would go into the
discussion
> of relative harm, which I have done in the past, but clearly you are not
> interested in such fact based discusison, but prefer an overblown
emotional
> denial of the fact that it is none of your business.

Drugs are harmful, and because of that they will remain illegal.  "Relative
harm" is Legalizer BS.  "Fact-based discussion"?  Legalizer BS for "If I
repeat it often enough, somebody will believe it's a fact."

only a dimwit wouldn't feel emotion when confronted with the likes of you -
disgust is the one i'm feeling right now.  maybe even revulsion.   i'm not
ashamed of that.  i won't apologize for that.  and nobody except a Legalizer
would try to make me ashamed of it.

Beam me up, Scotty.

flick 100785

> No one has implied that it is "OK" to do. That is your intentional
> misrepresentation of the scale of relative risks, and the fact that we are
> saying that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!

>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list