On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 7/28/2010 4:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> PMFA, but where did you get your medical degree from?  If you're going
>> to make assertions like that, I'd like to see them backed up by some
>> sort of credentials that show you have some expertise in the field. 
>> (And before you ask, no, I don't have such expertise).  Or a cite from
>> a reputable source would suffice as well.
>>
> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of these
> things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific magazines, or
> which issues.

Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation bias?

>>>>    * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing
>>>> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today
>>>>
>>> No it won't. As I already said, 90% of the drugs out there make the
>>> person need more, and more, and more, the longer they use them, its
>>> the nature of the chemical process they work by. This, short of a
>>> treatment like Ibogaine appears to provide, is **permanent** and
>>> **cumulative**.
>>
>> Depends on the drug.
>>
> I did say most. And, as I pointed out, it also depends on the person's
> own biology. Some people seem to be damn near completely immune to
> addiction. Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as caffeine.

So basically, people need to be protected from themselves?  I don't buy 
that.  Making mistakes is part of life, and not something people should 
be insulated from.  Experience is one of the best teachers out there.

> Sound all well and good, but you are presuming that the criminal system
> always catches these people, and no one that is sitting at home doing
> that didn't do anything wrong to get their hit. 

I'm presuming nothing.  I meet about once a month with a representative 
of the SLC police department, and he and I have very interesting chats 
about how police work is actually done and how effective it is.

One of the things I take away from the conversations time and again is 
that if they didn't have to spend so much time dealing with non-violent 
offenders, they might actually be able to catch more people committing 
crimes against people & property.

> Any other way of looking at it only appears *sane* if you assume neither
> you, nor anyone you know, will *ever* be the victim. Which one could
> argue is either arrogant, or stupid.

Nobody every said life was safe.  Or fair.

Jim

Post a reply to this message