|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |