Willie Nelson sentenced to... sing.

[Alex Libman]

That one is much more dangerous than the other.

That will be decided in the free market by the insurance companies and all of the other contractual agreements I've mentioned above.  Some of those agreements will be based on danger of regular use, some on danger of possible improper use, and some will inevitably be based on cultural attributes - a lot of people don't want their kids raised in a neighborhood that tolerates pot.

Modern technology can reduce the dangers of modern drugs by storing them in "smart" robotized containers, tracking every pill with some upcoming ingestion-safe mini-RFID tech, medical implants that release the proper doze very gradually while monitoring its absorption and vital signs, etc.  Social perceptions about things like pot don't change quite so quickly - especially like in the Muslim world, whose population is a lot more fertile than your average western pot-heads, and will soon command a lot more economic sway.  Some of those perceptions are indeed grounded in crude but effective protection instincts.

Some generally rational people may smoke pot, but smoking pot generally does not make people more rational.  One joint probably won't do long-term harm to anyone (though I personally have never even been in the same room with one), but cultural labels tend to be rather permanent...  According to some people: "you fuck one goat, and you're a goat-fucker".

No, grammatically, most punctuation goes inside quotation marks.

Now you are defending an irrational tradition that dates back to typesetting complications of centuries past, and has mainly been kept alive by public school teachers looking for things to yap about on government-subsidized time.  Anyone used to analyzing grammatical tokens logically (ex. a programmer) would have nothing but contempt for people who defend that rule.  (It's been a pet peeve of mine since grade school.)

A "destruction"...?

I obviously meant "distinction" - original message now edited to fix this typo.

Sorry, my biological eyes have lately been refusing to integrate into the computer at full capacity 20 hours a day, and my upcoming cyborg eyes aren't quite ready for transplant just yet, so I make economies by not reading anything I type, and only reading every third word written by others.   

Tylenol is an analgesic.  It doesn't combat illness.  Its sole purpose is to alter your perception of reality such that  you feel better.  Sort of like marijuana and cocaine.

It is prescribed by doctors to reduce unwanted fevers, etc.  I believe in the free market, where doctors can recommend anything they want, and patients (self-owning adults) are free to take anything they want - subject to any contractual agreements they've entered into voluntarily.  I've been addressing some of the misconceptions that many libertarians have about how pot and other recreational plants / drugs would be treated in a free market.  Instead you've responded with canned anti-prohibitionist arguments, failing to make your very simple off-topic points without degrading all of modern medicine in the process...

So, because of how the State does things, now, folks will continue doing those things, without the State?

Yes, some fraction will - especially older / wealthier people, or people with large families.  The State doesn't prohibit drugs to make itself unpopular.

If you believe in "punishment," not restitution, then you aren't an anarcho-capitalist.  Maybe a socialist of some sort; since they oppose money, they would oppose restitution.

That's just nitpicking.  I believe in a restitution-based justice system for Natural Law, which could be described as the convict being "punished" and the victim being "rewarded", and I also believe in Freedom of Contract.  (As long as those contracts are sufficiently explicit, unlike say GPL.)

Um, no, your notion that marijuana could, hypothetically, be rendered more toxic than it already is, is a side-issue.  The question is about how each are actually used, not how they hypothetically might be altered at some hypothetical point in the future.

I'm not the one who brought Tylenol into this conversation, I've merely commented on what it would take, hypothetically, to make Tylenol and pot comparable.

And no, you cannot condense THC (the "active ingredient" to which you referred) any more than it is.

You're talking about forests, I'm talking about making a few very sharp toothpicks, and not necessarily out of THC.  The exact cannabinoid manipulation methods are still a Libman Labs trade secret, just in case we find that they have any practical benefits beyond simply making pot comparable to Tylenol for the purposes of this one off-topic tangent.   

And yet, you admit to using them.  And say you would, again, if a doctor recommended it.  Tylenol alters your perception of reality; analgesics are the ultimate in escapism.

Quoting myself from another forum:  "I am one healthy son-of-a-bitch.  I've taken a grand total of 6 pills of antibiotics and a minimal amount of Tylenol for fever in the past 12 years.  Vitamin supplements for vegans, during a time when they were beneficial.  That's it.  I had a phase when I consumed alcohol, but I can distinctly remember every visit to a boos store I've ever made, because there were so few of them.  Never did any recreational drugs - at one point I thought I'd try them someday, for solidarity sake, once I am around people I can trust in New Hampshire, but that door is now closed."

Sometimes I go a whole year without taking a single Tylenol, but sometimes I take it for a few days when I get really sick.  When you have to work with a fever, Tylenol does help.  The aforementioned antibiotics were to appease a certain nagging female - and, I assure you, I've been getting a lot more from that relationship than I've put in.   

[MaineShark]

That will be decided in the free market by the insurance companies and all of the other contractual agreements I've mentioned above.

It's already been determined, scientifically.  There is no evidence that anyone, in the history of the world, has ever overdosed on marijuana.  Acetaminophen is the most-overdosed drug in the US and several other countriesm ad the leading cause of acute liver failure in the Western world (even above alcohol).  It's a horribly-dangerous substance.  Keeping pet rattlesnakes is safer than keeping Tylenol in the house.

Some of those agreements will be based on danger of regular use, some on danger of possible improper use, and some will inevitably be based on cultural attributes - a lot of people don't want their kids raised in a neighborhood that tolerates pot.

Given what a huge fraction of the population has used it, I expect you really don't have any clue what you're talking about.

Some generally rational people may smoke pot, but smoking pot generally does not make people more rational.  One joint probably won't do long-term harm to anyone (though I personally have never even been in the same room with one), but cultural labels tend to be rather permanent...  According to some people: "you fuck one goat, and you're a goat-fucker".

So, something between a quarter and half the population of the US are forever "potheads," in your theory?

No, grammatically, most punctuation goes inside quotation marks.

Now you are defending an irrational tradition that dates back to typesetting complications of centuries past, and has mainly been kept alive by public school teachers looking for things to yap about on government-subsidized time.  Anyone used to analyzing grammatical tokens logically (ex. a programmer) would have nothing but contempt for people who defend that rule.  (It's been a pet peeve of mine since grade school.)

If you want a rational language, stop speaking English, right... now.  English is not rational.

Sorry, my biological eyes have lately been refusing to integrate into the computer at full capacity 20 hours a day, and my upcoming cyborg eyes aren't quite ready for transplant just yet, so I make economies by not reading anything I type, and only reading every third word written by others.   

It shows.  You'd realize that all your arguments are being thoroughly refuted, if you you read with more detail.

As far as your original "analogy," as I noted, it is not analogous.  The behaviors you describe are not the same (kissing romantically, versus mouth-to-mouth resuscitation).  You could compare real mouth-to-mouth to a CPR demonstration (where the intent in one is to save the victim's life, and in the other is to demonstrate technique), but you'll find that the difference in motives doesn't actually matter.  If you imagine that a romantic kiss and CRP have anything in common, I'm going to take a wild guess that you've either never done one, never done the other, or never done either.

It is prescribed by doctors to reduce unwanted fevers, etc.

Its effectiveness as an antipyretic is questionable.  Ibuprofen has demonstrably better effectiveness, and is far safer.

I've been addressing some of the misconceptions that many libertarians have about how pot and other recreational plants / drugs would be treated in a free market.

No, you've just been posting your own misconceptions of how drugs would be treated.  The overwhelming majority of the population enjoys recreational drugs.

Yes, some fraction will - especially older / wealthier people, or people with large families.  The State doesn't prohibit drugs to make itself unpopular.

No, the State prohibited drugs to create crime that they could use as an excuse to oppress the population.  Can't create a crime wave, unless you ban something large numbers of folks want.

I'm not the one who brought Tylenol into this conversation, I've merely commented on what it would take, hypothetically, to make Tylenol and pot comparable.

No, you said, "drugs."  I pointed out that you probably use drugs that are more dangerous than marijuana.  So saying that rational people would not allow marijuana around, is asinine.  Rational people would not allow Tylenol and a number of other currently-legal drugs around.  Marijuana would be way down the list.

And no, you cannot condense THC (the "active ingredient" to which you referred) any more than it is.

You're talking about forests, I'm talking about making a few very sharp toothpicks, and not necessarily out of THC.  The exact cannabinoid manipulation methods are still a Libman Labs trade secret, just in case we find that they have any practical benefits beyond simply making pot comparable to Tylenol for the purposes of this one off-topic tangent.   

I'm talking about rational reality, not your hallucinations.

And yet, you admit to using them.  And say you would, again, if a doctor recommended it.  Tylenol alters your perception of reality; analgesics are the ultimate in escapism.

Quoting myself from another forum:  "I am one healthy son-of-a-bitch.  I've taken a grand total of 6 pills of antibiotics and a minimal amount of Tylenol for fever in the past 12 years.  Vitamin supplements for vegans, during a time when they were beneficial.  That's it.  I had a phase when I consumed alcohol, but I can distinctly remember every visit to a boos store I've ever made, because there were so few of them.  Never did any recreational drugs - at one point I thought I'd try them someday, for solidarity sake, once I am around people I can trust in New Hampshire, but that door is now closed."

Sometimes I go a whole year without taking a single Tylenol, but sometimes I take it for a few days when I get really sick.  When you have to work with a fever, Tylenol does help.  The aforementioned antibiotics were to appease a certain nagging female - and, I assure you, I've been getting a lot more from that relationship than I've put in.   

In other words, you've used more mind-altering substances than I have.  Strongest drug I take is Advil, and it has no analgesic effect on me (so, no mind-altering properties); it's just an anti-inflammatory, as far as my metabolism is concerned.  I drink more alcohol than you do, but my liver can produce dehydrogenase nearly as fast as I could drink (and far faster than I ever do, actually, drink), so that has zero effect on me; just an interesting spice, as far as I'm concerned.

So, druggie, should I ban you from my community?

Joe

[Alex Libman]

I'm gonna let MaineShark have the last word on the off-topic Tylenol vs pot vs pet rattlesnakes debate.  Unless of course someone writes a big-enough golden cheque to Libman Labs, and then I'll put together a team who can rearrange them pot molecules to do anything you like.   

In other news, Willie Nelson endorsed Gary Johnson, an otherwise good candidate but who IMHO also focused too much on pot politics over the past couple of years.

[MaineShark]

I'm gonna let MaineShark have the last word on the off-topic Tylenol vs pot vs pet rattlesnakes debate.

That's a rather passive-aggressive way to concede total defeat on every single point you attempted to argue.

Unless of course someone writes a big-enough golden cheque to Libman Labs, and then I'll put together a team who can rearrange them pot molecules to do anything you like.   

Now, that would be off-topic.  The topic was marijuana, not some drug synthesized using marijuana as a feedstock.  Attempting to argue that way, would be like claiming that, since heroin is dangerous, obviously all right-thinking folks would ostracize those who eat poppy seed bagels.

Joe

[littlehawk]

Dude....like... I did "the poppyseed bagels," man. At Woodstock. Bad trip. Careful.

[Russell Kanning]

I don't think a republican presidential candidate could possibly overplay his anti-prohibition position.

[Alex Libman]

Yes, forget the economy, taxes, eminent domain, false flag ops, brainwashing of children, socialist health-care, government takeover of the Internet, castration and manipulation of science, cradle-to-grave welfare nanny state, capitalism taking the blame for all socialist screw-ups, global government ending all intergovernmental competition, and all those other silly non-issues.  Let's make liberty all about smoking pot!  The government thugs are just shaking in their panties at the very thought of having to tax and regulate legalized recreational drugs, and have their slaves liberated from horrible burdens like attention span, memory, motor coordination, judgement, etc.  Pot!  Pot!  Pot!  Pot!

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks for the ignore feature on the forum Kat.   

[MaineShark]

Given that they justify much of their encroachment upon liberty using the war on drugs... yes, let's.

Joe

[David]

I had no idea that tylenol could kill you. Really only one bottle?

There is "significant risk of toxicity" at 200mg acetaminophen per 1kg of body weight. For a 220 pound (100kg) adult, that is 40 extra-strength (500mg) Tylenol, or just 20 tablets for a 110 pound person.

As I understand it, acetaminophen is damaging to the liver.  Enough of it will prolly shut it down permanently.  Your life span goes down quickly afterwords.  I wouldn't suggest crushing and snorting it. 

[Alex Libman]

Given that they justify much of their encroachment upon liberty using the war on drugs... yes, let's.

No, they justify much of their encroachment upon liberty through outdated economic conjectures.  Great advancements in Individual Rights are being achieved through intergovernmental competition, with shining beacons of freedom like Singapore leading the way.  The bottom-feeding losers who think a free society would let them drive through current neighborhoods without identification while stoned shitless are doing a lot more harm to the cause of liberty than good.

[MaineShark]

No, they justify much of their encroachment upon liberty through outdated economic conjectures.

You mean outdated economic conjectures like prohibition?

Glad to see that you've fully conceded these points.

Joe

[Alex Libman]

You mean outdated economic conjectures like prohibition?

No, like socialism.  You can have contractual prohibitions in a free society, which, in case you've missed it, is the core of my argument.  Most private roads will still have traffic rules that are enforced, and most private neighborhoods will have rules about controlling substances.

Given that the cause of pot freedom is having a very hard time passing ballot measures even in the most liberal places in the world, in spite of all the promised tax and regulation benefits, I think those prohibitions would be quite popular in a free society, and more competently enforced.  There is some governmental pressure to resist legalization, but ultimately tyrants don't care if they maintain their power through preventative prohibitions or by babysitting a society filled with stoned idiots - alleged reminders to everyone that individuals cannot be trusted to take responsibility for their actions.

People who want to ban pot also tend to have higher incomes and higher fertility rates, which means they will have more power in a free society to get you fired or evicted for doing drugs.  As ever-newer high-tech drugs become available (ex. electric pleasure beamed directly into your brain), people who've lost their grip on reality will become a greater and greater issue, and ever-more people will want to err on the side of caution.  You might as well market libertarianism as the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot!

Glad to see that you've fully conceded these points.

When I concede a point, it is an event so rare that I highlight it in red and keep linking to it endlessly for years afterward (libricides aside) as proof that I am capable of conceding a point.

[MaineShark]

No, like socialism.

Socialism and prohibitionism stem from the same psychological place.  Every socialist is a prohibitionist.  Every prohibitionist I've ever met is a closet socialist.

You can have contractual prohibitions in a free society, which, in case you've missed it, is the core of my argument.  Most private roads will still have traffic rules that are enforced, and most private neighborhoods will have rules about controlling substances.

You can have contractual socialism in a free society.  Will "most" neighborhoods be socialist, then, just because they can?

Given that the cause of pot freedom is having a very hard time passing ballot measures even in the most liberal places in the world, in spite of all the promised tax and regulation benefits, I think those prohibitions would be quite popular in a free society, and more competently enforced.

In a free society, there won't be government-run indoctrination centers to brainwash children into supporting this nonsense.

There is some governmental pressure to resist legalization, but ultimately tyrants don't care if they maintain their power through preventative prohibitions or by babysitting a society filled with stoned idiots - alleged reminders to everyone that individuals cannot be trusted to take responsibility for their actions.

Only a small fraction will abuse drugs and become "stoned idiots," and you can't control the innocent.  Oppressive religions or governments always ban popular things, so the maximum number of individuals will become "sinners," and therefore be controllable.  The majority of Americans have used drugs, regardless of whether they are legal or not, so making them illegal creates the largest number of "sinners" possible.

People who want to ban pot also tend to have higher incomes and higher fertility rates, which means they will have more power in a free society to get you fired or evicted for doing drugs.

Citation for that bit of propaganda, please...

In my experience, the most fervent supporters of prohibition tend to be in the "inbred redneck" category, not "high income."  High income types seem to disproportionately use drugs.  They can afford to avoid the legal consequences of doing so, hence they do not fight against prohibition.  In a free society, where the justice system is harder to game, they would likely not support prohibitions that would cause them trouble.

When I concede a point, it is an event so rare that I highlight it in red and keep linking to it endlessly for years afterward (libricides aside) as proof that I am capable of conceding a point.

Your total failure to disprove any of my refutations constitutes concession.

Joe

[Alex Libman]

Socialism and prohibitionism stem from the same psychological place.  Every socialist is a prohibitionist.  Every prohibitionist I've ever met is a closet socialist.

You're drifting again.  I've said that governments "justify much of their encroachment upon liberty through outdated economic conjectures", meaning (political) socialism, a subset of which includes the "war" on certain plants / substances / "drugs".  This thread criticizes so-called libertarians who endlessly rehash the drugs issue as their #1 priority, neglecting the broader issues of liberty, and especially neglecting the likelihood that social and economic consequences of drug use in a free society would also be unpleasant.

You can have contractual socialism in a free society.  Will "most" neighborhoods be socialist, then, just because they can?

Even contractual socialism constitutes a competitive disadvantage, a lot more so than the prohibition of alcohol, pot, heroin, etc.  Singapore isn't harmed by its prohibitions, and one can make a strong case that it is helped by it, creating a more suitable environment for family tourism, business, and high-tech research.  It is a champion of low taxes, low crime, low corruption, and the highest IQ scores in the world.

In a free society, there won't be government-run indoctrination centers to brainwash children into supporting this nonsense.

In a free society, parents would have an even greater incentive to encourage their children to grow up healthy, smart, and productive.

Non-coercive religious indoctrination would still be around, possibly stronger than before.

Only a small fraction will abuse drugs and become "stoned idiots," and you can't control the innocent.  Oppressive religions or governments always ban popular things, so the maximum number of individuals will become "sinners," and therefore be controllable.  The majority of Americans have used drugs, regardless of whether they are legal or not, so making them illegal creates the largest number of "sinners" possible.

I'm not out to "control" anybody, only to explain the economic reality of recreational drug use in a free society.

You live in New England and mostly hang out with young libertarians, and you seem to be biased by your surroundings.  The objective reality is that drug prohibitionism is very popular throughout the world: I keep a very close eye on Russia, China, etc.  About one quarter of the world's population (and growing) is Muslim, who are big fans of prohibitionism.  Some fraction of Christians and other religious adherents are as well.  And even if you live in the top 0.1% most pot-friendly place on earth, there are still economic entanglements to be considered: companies will refuse to hire drug users based on economic pressure from their clients elsewhere.

Even the most libertarian states in the world's most libertarian country have a very hard time legalizing even the least dangerous of taboo drugs, even under the condition of maintaining strict government controls!  (Or do you believe aliens are switching the ballot boxes in every polling place every time?)

Citation for that bit of propaganda, please...

You'll just claim that the current statistics are tainted by the effects of imprisonment and other government-caused bias (at least that's what I do when arguing against prohibitionists).  But, fine, I'll do 30 seconds of Googling...  Heavy Pot Users Report Lower Income And Education...  yuck dot-gov... Smoking Marijuana Lowers Fertility...  although in the modern age desire to have children is far more significant than sperm quality...  darn my 30 seconds are up.   

I guess you'll just have to use a bit of common sense.  Terms like "stoner" or "crack baby" don't generally imply "future CEO".  Drugs and alcohol loosen one's grip on objective reality, and some can stay in one's system for days, making drug users less reliable employees, business partners, parents, insurance subjects, etc.

In my experience, the most fervent supporters of prohibition tend to be in the "inbred redneck" category, not "high income."  High income types seem to disproportionately use drugs.  They can afford to avoid the legal consequences of doing so, hence they do not fight against prohibition.  In a free society, where the justice system is harder to game, they would likely not support prohibitions that would cause them trouble.

See above.  Also, any demographic comparison between two groups needs to consider not only income but other things that contribute to long-term economic power, including: savings, life expectancy, family size, "soft power", etc.  A lot of coke-yuppies blow through a lot of cash and leave behind at most one token child.  A lot of "inbred redneck" types invest in their families, as well as in high-security assets (ex. land).

A lot of families would boycott Wawa (for example) if their priest / Imam / neighborhood association leaders told them it was tolerating recreational drug use by its employees.  I might as well, because I like fast service and exact change.  How many people would boycott Wawa for having a drug testing policy for its employees?  Probably not even most pot-heads, because they tend to forget these kinds of things, especially when they get the munchies...

Your total failure to disprove any of my refutations constitutes concession.

What refutations?  All you've done is babble about Tylenol, the use of which currently isn't a likely target of massive ostracism within a free market society.

The substance of points about drug activism being an overused and shallow topic remains untouched.