Recreational drugs FAR less likely to kill than prescribed drugs!

[StrongArm]

Thanks, its....interesting so far

[Dylboz]

See, here's a fine example of what I worry about. If the neophyte or moderate libertarian looks into the FSP and finds a hotbed of New Age woo woo conspiracy theorist paranoid pseudoscientific religious nonsense, it's gonna turn them off. That's why I say that "Truthers," CT's of all stripes, alternative medicine advocates, religious fundamentalists, bomb throwing anarchists and the like hurt the liberty movement, at least in terms of our appeal to potential fellow travelers and well-wishing mainstreamers, let alone new recruits, for lack of a better term. I understand that those well outside of the mainstream, especially those who may have found their lifestyle persecuted or even violently opposed by the police state, are attracted to a movement that puts the use of force against hem firmly off the table. Obviously, freedom for all means freedom for them to do the things they're not now free to do, provided they're voluntary and the don't hurt anyone.

Nonetheless, when we put that face on it, we wind up in the world of caricature and identity politics that so thoroughly defines the ruling class party duopoly. Democrats are not known for their stand on principle, rather they are known as seeking to forcibly redistribute wealth and subsidize environmentalism, dubious though the science may be, as well as forcing the total acceptance (not the same as tolerance) of gay marriage and radical feminist "equality" and affirmative action for minorities. Republicans are dead set against personal freedom, all for jails, police, the military and empire, and they wish to subsidize religion and force gays back in the closet. Political parties are known coalitions of special interests, vying for power to force their values on others and punish all resistance. Sometimes, they break into factions, as can be seen now in the Democratic primaries.

The Libertarian Party used to be "the party of principle." It's going through it's own meltdown, mainly because it has abandoned that principle to pursue agendas and specific policy goals, and worst of all, to court politicos from D.C. despite their obvious statist bent. I think we would all do well to focus on the principle of freedom as an end in itself, something to be valued and fought for because it is right, and true and good. Not as a means to and end, like unfettered access to marijuana or prostitutes or machine guns or multiple wives or gay marriage. These things are great for those who value them, but they need to placed in the context of freedom for all, and true tolerance doesn't mean encouragement, acceptance or endorsement, it means allowing others to do even what you find abhorrent, so long as it is peaceful and voluntary, in order that you may do as you see fit yourself. You are free to condemn it in your speech and to argue against it on your own property or that of others who allow you to, to refuse to associate with or allow onto your property those who practice it, we know ostracism is a powerful tool, but you must not gather you neighbors with pitchforks to act violently against those who do something you don't like, tolerance need only mean refraining from the initiation of violence against others.

In fact, that is really the only principle one needs. The Zero Aggression Principle. I will confess, sometimes it's hard to follow through, as it leads to conclusions that seems pretty scary sometimes. But it's what we got, and we ought to use it. I think we'll be happier with who we find in our movement, since we can see that identity politics and special interests and single issue crusaders make for some pretty fractious coalitions, and very little loyalty when push actually comes to shove. Do you think many working class union Democrats would come out to an End the Drug War rally organized by radical students and medical marijuana patients? How many SUV Republicans with yellow ribbons are really behind the Bush bailout for house flippers? Even Rush had a hard time taking the party line on the bloated Farm Bill, knowing as he does how hard Americans are being hit by inflation and the high cost of ethanol subsidies, while "conservatives' are supposed to be against taxes and big government. These people are not united by principle, but expediency, hoping that if they hold their nose and go along with a little corporate welfare and U.N. adventurism, they'll get to keep their guns, or if they don't push too hard on the marijuana thing, they'll get free healthcare for life. Of course, playing both sides against the middle, the big corporations, as much government institutions as the FBI or NASA, always win.

When we stick to the principle, without compromise, the question "what are the people like" answers itself. We are for freedom. Always. We oppose the initiation of force. Always. And welcome to our movement.

[Kat Kanning]

See, here's a fine example of what I worry about. If the neophyte or moderate libertarian looks into the FSP and finds a hotbed of New Age woo woo conspiracy theorist paranoid pseudoscientific religious nonsense, it's gonna turn them off. That's why I say that "Truthers," CT's of all stripes, alternative medicine advocates, religious fundamentalists, bomb throwing anarchists and the like hurt the liberty movement, at least in terms of our appeal to potential fellow travelers and well-wishing mainstreamers, let alone new recruits, for lack of a better term.

If that's the way you feel, maybe you shouldn't hang out with us.

[Dylboz]

Why? Didn't you read the rest of that? I think it far more important that we share the common goal of liberty than we agree on any of that crap. I have said before that I'd like to fancy myself the calm voice of reason, though I am given to outbursts and errors as much as anyone. The point is, if we are united by the principles of freedom and non-aggression, then we share more than an interest in controlled demolitions or dilution solutions. I think it's very important we put that FIRST instead of the other agendas, at least when talking to people who are new to the movement or interested in the FSP.

[srqrebel]

Very well said, Dylboz. Instead of each of us pushing our own divisive pet agendas, it would behoove all of us to stay focused on what brought us together in the first place: Our mutual goal of freedom for all.

We may disagree on methodology, but the central focus should always be freedom. Petty bickering over how people ought to behave and what people ought to believe, when it does not relate to the central issue of individual liberty, is divisive and runs counter to our goal.

[Dylboz]

Yeah, I mean, I love to argue and debate and whatnot (obviously!), but I want us to remember what we value most, even in spite of our differences. I think where it is most important is in dealing with those who seek to understand what we're about, why we're doing this whole "move to New Hampshire" thing at all. The first thing out of our mouth shouldn't be "I wanna be free to smoke weed all day," or "I want the man to get off my case about my machine guns," but rather "freedom, first, last and always." Ya' know?

[srqrebel]

Absolutely.

[mackler]

"126" and "127" are references to other resources. #127 links to this which is excerpted from a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine research report, which includes this section:—

8. What has scientific research found out about whether homeopathy works?

This section summarizes results from (1) individual clinical trials (research studies in people) and (2) broad analyses of groups of clinical trials.

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials.

I don't think you took a very close look at Appendix I.  These so-called "contradictory" results were overwhelmingly supportive of of homeopathy.  Of the nine clinical trials presented as representative, eight showed either the effectiveness of a homeopathic remedy or a difference from a placebo, or both.  The reproduced findings include:

• A homeopathic remedy appears safe and effective in reducing the duration of influenza.
• "differences between the homeopathic immunotherapy and placebo for which we have no explanation" were noted (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• a homeopathic skin cream, may significantly reduce the severity and length of pain and inflammation of the tissues lining the inside of the mouth (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• a "significant objective improvement in nasal airflow" compared with the placebo group found in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• "homeopathic treatments improved digestive problems in children with acute childhood diarrhea." (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• For the treatment of hay fever, a homeopathic nasal spray is as efficient and well tolerated as a conventional therapy (Randomized, double-blinded)
• A group of patients with HIV receiving homeopathic treatment had increased levels of CD4 cells; the placebo subgroup did not (Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled)
• A homeopathic treatment and the standard treatment are equally effective in reducing the frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks (Randomized, double-blinded)

I'll caution that comes from a publication of the Federal Mafia, so I'm not saying I believe it, but if your point was to show that homeopathy has been disproven, that document does nothing of the sort.

I'll repeat myself.  The so-called "scientific" argument against homeopathy boils down to nothing more than "I cannot understand it, therefore it's not possible."  This is the same logic used by "scientists" who claimed until just a couple years ago that bees cannot fly.

The idea that there has been some scientific research conclusively showing homeopathy to be ineffective is simply not true, and it doesn't matter how many times detractors repeat "it's absurd! It's absurd! It's absurd!"  That's not scientific evidence.  Sorry.

[Dylboz]

There is NO scientific evidence that supports Homeopathy. It is not scientific. There is no mechanism, no means, no model, no way it can work. It doesn't work, except, like all sugar pills, as a placebo. Homeopaths agree, they are selling sugar pills and water. I REPEAT, THEY ADMIT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE CONTENT OF THEIR REMEDIES AND SUGAR PILL OR WATER PLACEBOS. They argue that it's the way they rap them on the table, or the sound waves they expose them to that make them "remember" the "active ingredient" or the number of dilutions that make them more effective. Why don't all water molecules retain the memory of urine, or rain, or Kool-Aid or raw sewage, or beer, or any number of other things they're likely to have been in solution with? If dilution makes thing MORE powerful, and medicine need not contain ANY ingredients besides water, and water retains memory, why doesn't tap water contain every therapeutic factor ever in its memory? If dilution to a degree that equals every water molecule in the known universe is sufficient to communicate some value to the consumer, than every glass of water should have some Homeopathic effect!

No matter how many times you say "it works! it works! it works!" it does not make it work. It remains absurd. What you have is a belief. There is no evidence whatever to support that belief. It angers me, yes, angers me, that in spite of that fact, you continue to assert that there is some validity to it. Frankly, if you just came out and said, "it only works if you believe in it," or "it is a religious belief I have," I'd drop the whole thing. But your insistence that it is something more than a lucky rabbit's foot or 4 leaf clover in pill or liquid form demands refutation. I'm ordering the very item you recommended, but how it differs in any way from the other item listed on my blog, when both have ZERO sulfur in them, and the suppliers would agree, is a mystery. Why, I ask, doesn't every water molecule retain the memory of every other atom or molecule it's ever come in contact with, or since Homeopaths deny they even need to come in actual contact, and the entire earth is essentially a hydrostatic (a closed circuit, no new water gets in, and none gets out) system, why isn't plain water the most therapeutically effective substance known to man? It should have the memory of everything that ever existed going back to the beginning of the universe, right? It should be thoroughly diluted, making EXTRA effective, right? Or banging it on the table fixes that? Shaking it, maybe? Come on, man! Get over it!

[Dylboz]

I challenge you to read and refute this article without abandoning the scientific method entirely.

Diluting the Scientific Method

You are claiming the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and that the stork delivers babies by magic, all rolled into one. This is a pre-molecular chemistry, pre-DNA, pre-germ theory, pre-atom, pre-clinical trial belief system, and it could be understood, and perhaps even forgiven, in a pre-industrial peasant, scratching a living out of a dirt patch and entertaining all manner of superstitions, but the fact is, living in the modern age and tapping away at the internet, you ought to know better. You really have no excuse in entertaining these delusions. But again, read the article. Challenge the science. Find a study of Homeopathy that undermines the conclusions.

Honestly, I feel sorry for you. You're being snowed. Taken. Hosed. Ripped off. Your desire to believe, and the fact that you're willing to reject facts in evidence are both being exploited at your considerable expense. It wont really matter until such time as you have a serious illness that requires professional intervention. I really hope it never comes to that, or at least, if it does, that you don't kill yourself by insisting on sugar pills and water instead of legitimate treatment. Whatever you may think of me, I really don't want your ignorance to bring you harm or an early end. Superstition is everyone's enemy, especially those who cling to it. Well, unless they're burning witches, then it's the "witches" who suffer... You may think I'm some evil Torquemada, but I am merely an enemy of the pseudo-science you promote, not you personally.

[Dylboz]

The so-called "scientific" argument against homeopathy boils down to nothing more than "I cannot understand it, therefore it's not possible." 

Yours is, "it cannot be explained, and it doesn't work any more often than chance or placebo, therefore, it is not only possible, it works."

What is happening? When there is a difference from placebo, is it statistically significant? Is it persistent? Reproducible? Is there a mechanism? Well... No... N. O. No.

You might as well posit Tinkerbelle can cure the common cold.

WAIT!!!

You know how your challenge tells me that I'll get all the terrible things that the 200C Sulfur stuff you recommended will cure if I don't already have them? Well, what about someone who has only one or two of the symptoms? Do they have to trade off the cure for those and expect the curse of all the others? Or does the "cure" KNOW how to target the symptoms that the patients want to cure, but not CAUSE all the rest? What is the mechanism if that is the case? Magic? Positive thinking? Voodoo?

[KBCraig]

See, here's a fine example of what I worry about. If the neophyte or moderate libertarian looks into the FSP and finds a hotbed of New Age woo woo conspiracy theorist paranoid pseudoscientific religious nonsense, it's gonna turn them off. That's why I say that "Truthers," CT's of all stripes, alternative medicine advocates, religious fundamentalists, bomb throwing anarchists and the like hurt the liberty movement, at least in terms of our appeal to potential fellow travelers and well-wishing mainstreamers, let alone new recruits, for lack of a better term.

If that's the way you feel, maybe you shouldn't hang out with us.

Why? Didn't you read the rest of that?

I have to say, the rest of Dylboz's post is definitely a must-read, especially if you think the first paragraph sums up his position. It most definitely doesn't.

[Dylboz]

Thanks! I'm glad someone actually read the whole thing!

[KBCraig]

It was an excellent rant. Very well stated.

[mackler]

There is NO scientific evidence that supports Homeopathy. It is not scientific. There is no mechanism, no means, no model, no way it can work.

LOL.  Yeah, no scientific evidence, Dylboz, except the eight studies referred in the report posted by J'raxis.  And other studies not mentioned there.  I'd take the time to post them if I thought you were capable of comprehending scientific literature.  It's easy for you to say there's no evidence when you selectively ignore anything that doesn't support your religious dogma.

Poor Dylboz, he doesn't believe bees can fly, either.

Keep popping those pills, champ, and telling me how I'm the one getting ripped-off.  How much do those cost you anyway?