Quote:

---

anyone420 said:
couldn't i argue that the brain is always developing?

but anyway, putting the science aside..

how do you justify preventing others from doing what they want to their own body with no victim?

there is no moral justification, any way you look at it, you are initiating force on other human being

force is force man, telling someone not to do something, putting them in a 6x6 jail cell, and stabbing them in the neck with an ice pick is still force

---

Quote:

---

anyone420 said:
stabbing them in the neck with an ice pick is still force

---

Quote:

---

wiccan you are speaking in a double standard

your saying other people are inferior to you, and that they should not have the freedom of choice because you are superior.

---

That is patent nonsense. Discussion is a nice juggling of concepts, but it also should have a bearing on the real world.

In the real world, perhaps one in a hundred opiate users can handle a vial of fap's Carfentanil or Etorphine without accidentally killing themselves or recklessly endangering others.

Theory and practice differ here. In theory every drug, substance and item should be freely available. In practice it would be a complete disaster.

Should nuclear weapons be made available to the general public, lets say to Al Qaida? Of course not!

Botox is a drug of which a single gram could make a million people life-threateningly ill, making half a million of them die. Should it be sold by the ounce to anyone who pays the money? Of course not!

I wouldn't want to live in a city where a vial of an ounce of Botox is kept, even if its a bunch of genius professionals handling it.

Freedom of choice is not worth having people die by the millions because of the irresponsible and malicious few among them. If you think everything should be available to anyone who wants it in any quantity, you're either being naive or a firm believer in mass death and suffering.





Would you want a drug of this potency and lethality ending up as an adulterant in all sorts of drugs, dosed by your average meth cook?

Quote:

---

People don't actually use Thalidomide recreationally do they?!?!

---

Quote:

---

Wiccan_Seeker said:

Quote:

---

wiccan you are speaking in a double standard

your saying other people are inferior to you, and that they should not have the freedom of choice because you are superior.

---

That is patent nonsense. Discussion is a nice juggling of concepts, but it also should have a bearing on the real world.

In the real world, perhaps one in a hundred opiate users can handle a vial of fap's Carfentanil or Etorphine without accidentally killing themselves or recklessly endangering others.

Theory and practice differ here. In theory every drug, substance and item should be freely available. In practice it would be a complete disaster.

Should nuclear weapons be made available to the general public, lets say to Al Qaida? Of course not!

Botox is a drug of which a single gram could make a million people life-threateningly ill, making half a million of them die. Should it be sold by the ounce to anyone who pays the money? Of course not!

I wouldn't want to live in a city where a vial of an ounce of Botox is kept, even if its a bunch of genius professionals handling it.

Freedom of choice is not worth having people die by the millions because of the irresponsible and malicious few among them. If you think everything should be available to anyone who wants it in any quantity, you're either being naive or a firm believer in mass death and suffering.


<img src=http://www.shroomery.org/forums/files/05-28/135957983-ohmefentanyl.gif>


Would you want a drug of this potency and lethality ending up as an adulterant in all sorts of drugs, dosed by your average meth cook?

---

Quote:

---

anyone420 said:
yeah, theres definitely a difference. but there are difference between 'adults' (over 18) way of thinking too. wouldn't it make sense to do a psychological evaluation before allowing people to use drugs, along this line of thinking? therefore prohibiting people who don't think a certain way from doing what they want?

i personally think that while there is some sense to an age restriction, it is fundamentally wrong

just as police cameras in every room of my house would make sense to prevent me from breaking the law, it is fundamentally wrong

i believe anyone, of any age, should be able to purchase any drug they wish

but i also believe that the supplier of that drug has the right to refuse sale to that person

essentially, any invasive or coercive action ie the initiation of force on another person is inherently wrong

but thx for entertaining my questions

---

Quote:

---

Wiccan_Seeker said: Would you want a drug of this potency and lethality ending up as an adulterant in all sorts of drugs, dosed by your average meth cook?

---

Quote:

---

anyone420 said:
i understand where your coming from, but i can't justify telling other people what to do as long as they harm no others.

any way you put it, your still saying that your beliefs are superior to others.

---

Quote:

---

what gives you the authority to tell other people what to do?

---

I believe some things should be restricted to qualified people only. The guiding principle is to reduce harm to humanity, or even the life on earth such as with radioactive compounds. Some things are so dangerous that they require a lot of training and the right attitude.

If you get appendicitis, shall I perform the surgery? I got a knife thats kinda sharp and needle and thread and I know pretty much where the appendix is located. You gotta promise not to sue when I accidentally remove a kidney instead though

Surgery is for surgeons. Bulk quantities of ultrapotent toxic drugs are for scientists qualified and trained in the field.

Common sense gives anyone the authority to decide that having everything available to everyone is a bad idea.

I'm charmed by the fundamentals of Anarchism but in the end its a pipe dream just like socialism, capitalism and fascism.

Quote:

---

why is your moral code better than everyone else's?

---

Quote:

---

what would you do to people that didn't wish to abide by your rules?

---

Quote:

---

it stars saddam said:
In my opinion, all drugs should be legal and available to the public. I feel that the individual should have the right to choose for himself whether or not to use chemicals to alter his consciousness or destroy himself.

---

With the addition that "individual" should refer to adults and not children.

Quote:

---

anyone420 said:
THEBats: i see what your saying, and yes i assume my beliefs to be better, otherwise i wouldn't be arguing. But i'm not advocating force on others. i'm advocating the concept that force is wrong. See what i'm saying? I think theres a big difference.

---