AME-359 - New drug could help beat cocaine addiction ??
DHempman at nospam.yahoo.com
Tue Jul 22 11:05:17 EST 2003
"flick" <flick at starband.net> wrote in message
news:1vcTa.162$mp3.10602609 at twister1.starband.net...
> "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
> > business. But, that is not what Eric was refering to.
> it's against the law.
I do not recognize your authority. Your meningless laws have no bearing on whay
I chose to do.
> > But, your complicity in prohibition is what makes cocaine's price higher
> > 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.
Too bad for you that those who chose to use any drug simply do not recognize
the ineffectual authoritarian attitude of the U. S. government. Therefore,
drugs are defacto legalized.
> > That is not what he said. What he did say is that it is none of your
> > 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.
Eh? Where did I say any of that, liar? The majority do NOT want drugs illegal.
They simply have not been given the choice by authoritarian dictators, such as
yourself. In any casse, civil rights and human rights do not belong to the
majority, no matter how much you jackboot thugs try to justify that.
> 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
Sure you do, you bitch all the time about the crime prohibitionist elevated
prices cause. You are just a poor liar. I am all for preoviding treatment to
those who actually need it. But the defnition is not "all use is automatically
abuse" and belongs in the hands of thier physicians, not politicians, cops and
> > 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.
Bullshit. You are liar. The American public has not been given the right to
choose, and when they do, the jackboot thugs march in, ignore the right of the
people to chose and inflict authoritarian doctatorship. If you are for the
right of the people to chose for themselves, then you surely support it when
the people spoke out and got laws passed in California, Arizona, etc. and you
decry to fact that voter rights have been usurped in DC. Or is your stance
situational ethics? They only have a right to speak when they go your way and
had no choice? Let me know exactly where the voters got a chance to vote to
keep prohibition? Please do not point to the "election" of a tiny number of
lying politicians who fail consistently to carry out the will of the voters.
That is not the voters speaking out, that is politicians dictating what they
will and will not do.
> not so cokeheads can buy more coke with less money.
So, you support keeping prices high so more crime is committed. Now you show
your true colors. Vested interest in job security for drug-whore-pigs is your
> 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
> > 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 would be far safer if it were legal. Almost all of the effects that you like
to list as detrimental are casued not by drug use, but by prohibition.
> IT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS.
Prove it. Where's your citations? Personal anecdotes don't count, as the
prohibitionists jackboots are wont to spurt. Let's see the research. Your
position is unsupported.
> it ain't a secret that a coke habit is expensive or dangerous. hasn't been
It is expensive because it is in the black market.
Almost all of the dangers associated with cocaine use are directly attributable
> 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.
Sho me your supportining citations. Yo9u never have and can not, as such proof
does not exist.
There is a major problem with your reasoning. Most people who use cocain never
become addicted. Less than one percent of those who use cocain become addicted
(unless one uses legislation to lie and claim falaciously that "any use
automatically equates to abuse".
> I'll pay taxes to fund treatment if they want to quit.
That is good. I would, too. However, it is a lie to legislatively redefine "any
use is automatically abuse" that _must_ be treated. If someone needs help,
provide a therapeutic environment where they can get help without a criminal
record to create unnecesary consequences.
> > Whether is is "bad" or not is a relative thing. I would go into the
> > 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
> > 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."
Prohibitionist bullshit. "It is dangerous because it is illegal." You all
moronically repeat that idiot's mantrta like it changes drug use one iota.
Prohibition does nothing except create a criminal atmosphere that prevents many
people with problems from seeking help. you are ,arried to a failed system that
has nover done anything to alter drug use patterns.
> 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.
Your discust and revulsion come from seeing a perfect reflection of the
fearmongering and hatred your methods require. You are displacing that onto an
easy target, someone you see as an enemy. Many say I should feel revulsion at
the sight of your continual attemtps to justify the horrors of the drug war,
but I feel great pity for the depths to which you have allowed your soul to
Your shame is your own, whether you even acknowledge it to yourself.
> Beam me up, Scotty.
You closing line demonstrates how deluded you are.
What a fantasy life. You think prohibition is good, despite all the evidence to
the contrary, and you live in a fake futuristic world where science fiction
characters hold more meaning to you than facts.
> 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!!!
And despite all of your squirming, it remains, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!
More information about the Neur-sci