NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

Drugs regulation can cause a great number of problems. Government intervention in such matters usually has the opposite effect of that intended. This comes from the fact that we assume that the government is made up of people who are not stupid. A government's stupidity is magnified in relation to the proportion of stupid people in general society as it is made up of people who want to be in government.

The only positive thing about heroin being illegal I can see is that without the legislation 'Trainspotting' would never have been written. Which seems a bit of a price to pay.

Herion? God no.

yes what could be better then legalising a strong form of morphine, but hey its not like drugs should be avoided :rolleyes:

i don't think it should be made legal. but it should be distributed to addicts who have no hope of stoppig their addiction. that way they don't have to steal to get money and everything happens in controled environments.

you do know they have rehab centres to send heroin addicts...yes?

i don't think it should be made legal. but it should be distributed to addicts who have no hope of stoppig their addiction. that way they don't have to steal to get money and everything happens in controled environments.

i don't think it should be made legal. but it should be distributed to addicts who have no hope of stoppig their addiction. that way they don't have to steal to get money and everything happens in controled environments.

You seem to be advocating illegal distribution by authorities. If it was legal addicts could get it from licenced premesis. The drug dealers would be taken off the streets. When it was legal there was a small number of middle-class heroin addicts, all of whome had jobs. Now that it is illegal, whenever someone breaks into your house and steals your property it is probably to fuel a habit.

you do know they have rehab centres to send heroin addicts...yes?

Ah - the very expensive rehab centres that provide the old methadone (more addictive than heroin some people say). Rehab for heroin is like a sticking plaster on a broken leg.

you do know they have rehab centres to send heroin addicts...yes?

yes.

they're already testing this in a city in Belgium. and i think it's already usual in Switzerland. the second and last paragraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Heroin_prescription)

I'm for pot being made legal.. alcohol and cigs staying legal. But for cocaine and heroine.. my first instinct is to say no. Although that no is for the people who haven't been exposed(and I feel iof it was legal the exposure would be more -- the same thing would be said at home.. don't do drugs.. it would be all over tv.. like that stops us now.. the only difference would be the exposure). I'm very thankful I never met up with heroin.. cause if I had.. and from what I've heard about it.. I woulda probably chased it. But luckily I've never seen it live. I dabbled in cocaine.. .. I didn't like it. (actually I think I got a hold of some crank and was told it was cocaine .. I couldn't sleep for a good while.. worst feeling I've ever had .. had a freakin Lynard Skynard cd in and was too jacked up to remove it.. it was on repeat I heard Simple Man like 20 times.. anytime I hear that song now it gives me a bad vibe. ) Ugh just thinking about it now is bad..

I'm leaving ..

Yes, with restrictions.

Primarily, I don't think the government has a right to tell me what I can and can't put into my body.

However, legalising heroin and other drugs and allowing its sale through some form of official outlet (but maintaining restrictions upon who can legally produce it) will put a strong chokehold upon organised crime by severely limiting their ability to raise funds. Safe injecting rooms could be provided (and their use made a condition of purchase) to stop the sharing of syringes.

Legality doesn't mean everyone is going to run out and try it. It has enough of a bad stigma attached to it anyway.

Yes. If all drugs are made legal then eventually the problem will sort itself out. Junkies will all die or run themselves into financial ruin. Plus, the government can tax it to buggery. Furthermore, it will reduce police spending on anti drugs type stuff, and should resolve some of the problems in Afghanistan.

It's like prohibition in the 20s. Organised crime thrives when things are banned.

Yes, with restrictions.

Primarily, I don't think the government has a right to tell me what I can and can't put into my body.

However, legalising heroin and other drugs and allowing its sale through some form of official outlet (but maintaining restrictions upon who can legally produce it) will put a strong chokehold upon organised crime by severely limiting their ability to raise funds. Safe injecting rooms could be provided (and their use made a condition of purchase) to stop the sharing of syringes.

Legality doesn't mean everyone is going to run out and try it. It has enough of a bad stigma attached to it anyway.

Exactly. In places where it has been made legal the average age of an adict is 35, and more than 90% of adicts have proffesional jobs. For the effect of prohibition 'Trainspotting' by Irvine Welsh is a good indication of how good this is for society.

Yes. If all drugs are made legal then eventually the problem will sort itself out. Junkies will all die or run themselves into financial ruin. Plus, the government can tax it to buggery. Furthermore, it will reduce police spending on anti drugs type stuff, and should resolve some of the problems in Afghanistan.

It's like prohibition in the 20s. Organised crime thrives when things are banned.


I understand what you are meaning.. but I really don't think it would work out like that. If it's truly legal.. and anyone can have it at say ...like beer in most places 21. It would be much more likely for people that havnt been around it to be introduced to it. And heroine isn't some play play drug.. No I'm not saying you get addicted off the first try (I don't know. but I doubt it)like they use to say about crack. I know personally that's not true. But how do you do heroin? really.. you don't smoke it.. you shoot it. that in it self is a serious risk on its on. and im pretty damn sure it makes a lot of people feel the best they have ever felt in their freakin life. give that to a teen who hates living with their parents and you are asking for a disaster.. where otherwise it woulda probably been some joints, boonsfarm and a xanaX(or whatever pill is popular now).

You know what I mean?

NO NO NO NO and NO!

All well and good making it legal for the sake of a few junkies. It may be their bodies they are injecting this crap into but it's many other people who are going to get hurt, even killed because of it.

The solution to stopping people breaking a law isn't getting rid of the law, by that logic the way that people still commit murders means we should allow that.:rolleyes:

Tighter control and harsher punishments, drug addicts are a danger to everyone else. In prison they should be offered rehab (payed for by their own money,not draining the health service of funds needed by people who obey the law and need it more). If they accept this rehab offered then give it to them, if not then they're on their own. Don't offer them heroin, see what happenes after 5-10 years in prison where they aren't available.

Better legal, clean heroin that's undergone proper quality control tests and can be taken in a clean, safe enviroment than shooting up something that's been cut with god knows what god knows how many times in a dirty alley with somsone elses used syringe.

NO NO NO NO and NO!

All well and good making it legal for the sake of a few junkies. It may be their bodies they are injecting this crap into but it's many other people who are going to get hurt, even killed because of it.

The solution to stopping people breaking a law isn't getting rid of the law, by that logic the way that people still commit murders means we should allow that.:rolleyes:

Tighter control and harsher punishments, drug addicts are a danger to everyone else. In prison they should be offered rehab (payed for by their own money,not draining the health service of funds needed by people who obey the law and need it more). If they accept this rehab offered then give it to them, if not then they're on their own. Don't offer them heroin, see what happenes after 5-10 years in prison where they aren't available.

Yes, piss away your tax money on keeping drug addicts in jail, taking up space that could be occupied by people who are a much greater threat to society.

In prison they should be offered rehab (payed for by their own money,not draining the health service of funds needed by people who obey the law and need it more). If they accept this rehab offered then give it to them, if not then they're on their own. Don't offer them heroin, see what happenes after 5-10 years in prison where they aren't available.
How are the addicts going to pay for rehab? Especially when they're in prison and don't work...

And of course, there are no drugs in prison they can get hold of at all.

Better legal, clean heroin that's undergone proper quality control tests and can be taken in a clean, safe enviroment than shooting up something that's been cut with god knows what god knows how many times in a dirty alley with somsone elses used syringe.


I doubt that would happen often unless they lived there and knew they had a steady fix there.. you'll have addicts maybe a few blocks from the headquarters of shooting up.. you think they are going to wait to get to safe haven or take the hit when they got it there in front of them. Nothings never sure. But your idea wasn't bad.

How are the addicts going to pay for rehab? Especially when they're in prison and don't work...

And of course, there are no drugs in prison they can get hold of at all.
yopu can get drugs in prison but it costs an arm and leg.. or ass.

omg.. my post jumped like 4 floors up! same time as my pc.. i think that's what's doing it .. for real.

Rofl.

Where do you live?
http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

It's not the government's job to keep people from hurting themselves. It is the individual's body that's being placed at risk here, not some piece of Government property. People should to be allowed to put in or take out of their body whatever they want.

I was once on a bus with a man who was drinking methadone, drinking methadone! I'm like, 98% sure you're not meant to do that.

@OP: I think the state, in its role as protector of the national economy, has a responsibility to limit the availability of drugs that are going to turn people into unproductive leeches. Conversely, the law should not punish drug users, they are, by and large, not bad people, but rather they are victims.

And of course, there are no drugs in prison they can get hold of at all.
Rofl.

Where do you live?

I doubt that would happen often unless they lived there and knew they had a steady fix there.. you'll have addicts maybe a few blocks from the headquarters of shooting up.. you think they are going to wait to get to safe haven or take the hit when they got it there in front of them. Nothings never sure. But your idea wasn't bad.

If it was legal they wouldn't have the illegal stuff in front of them. It would be too much hassel.

If it was legal they wouldn't have the illegal stuff in front of them. It would be too much hassel.


i meant the same drug.. a hit is a hit, legal or illegal. i meant you think they would say nah.. i'm gonna walk down to the clinic(hell maybe some would) and pass it up. well i guess if it was free.. but still.. im sure there would be limits on how many 'hits' they could get a day and with heroin that's not many. so they might be confined to 1 or 2 .. they go on the street .. (**** a ****) and get more from people who still dont give a rip if they OD.

Unless we're talking about locking them up and weaning them off it? Still up to the individual .. might have a better chance tho.. give them a positive environment .. give them their fix and keep reducing it as they grow stronger.. but when they leave that environment.. it's entirely up to them then.. that's when it would get hard.

To be honest with ya.. I never want to be in their position either way.. that would freakin suck having a substance controlling my every move.

NO NO NO NO and NO!

All well and good making it legal for the sake of a few junkies. It may be their bodies they are injecting this crap into but it's many other people who are going to get hurt, even killed because of it.

The solution to stopping people breaking a law isn't getting rid of the law, by that logic the way that people still commit murders means we should allow that.:rolleyes:

Tighter control and harsher punishments, drug addicts are a danger to everyone else. In prison they should be offered rehab (payed for by their own money,not draining the health service of funds needed by people who obey the law and need it more). If they accept this rehab offered then give it to them, if not then they're on their own. Don't offer them heroin, see what happenes after 5-10 years in prison where they aren't available.
Ha. By this logic being black should be illegal, since there's a disproportionate amount of black criminals.

I doubt that would happen often unless they lived there and knew they had a steady fix there.. you'll have addicts maybe a few blocks from the headquarters of shooting up.. you think they are going to wait to get to safe haven or take the hit when they got it there in front of them. Nothings never sure. But your idea wasn't bad.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Here's your heroin sir, and your needle. You can use the room just down the hall on the left. Please dispose of the needle properly. Thank you for your patronage."

This is such a hard debate, for example where would the legal heroin come from, would presume legal farms?

Also who would you imploy to make the stuff, excriminal? Or train more people who would perhaps chase after the money and go and work illegally.

I think the biggest problem is the Heroin is a global problem and requires a global solution. Just personally I would be against a legalising of heroin in the UK unless it was part of a global effort.

Better to have rehab first I.

This is such a hard debate, for example where would the legal heroin come from, would presume legal farms?

Also who would you imploy to make the stuff, excriminal? Or train more people who would perhaps chase after the money and go and work illegally.

I think the biggest problem is the Heroin is a global problem and requires a global solution. Just personally I would be against a legalising of heroin in the UK unless it was part of a global effort.

Better to have rehab first I.

get it from afganistan, good for the local farmers.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Here's your heroin sir, and your needle. You can use the room just down the hall on the left. Please dispose of the needle properly. Thank you for your patronage."

I think they have that now .. but it might be in-patient. It wouldn't be helping them any (besides keeping them from getting sick from not having it in em) .. it would be enabling them, not curing them, but yeah someone addicted to heroin or hell even cocaine or alcohol bad enough they have to be taken off gradually... or .. <delete>

I was thinking more along the lines of "Here's your heroin sir, and your needle. You can use the room just down the hall on the left. Please dispose of the needle properly. Thank you for your patronage."

Would sir care for a starter? - Johnny Swan

No, I think I will move straight on to the intraveinous injection ay hard drugs - Mark Renton

'Trainspotting - fing great book.

While I believe that Heroin itself is dangerous, I say it should be decriminalised, or heavily regulated to the point where it can only be bought and used at "safe" injection sights.

The source of Heroin shouldn't be outright destroyed in any case. It should be bought in mass quantities by the pharmaceutical industry. It has plenty of medicinal uses. By buying it for legal purposes we can help reduce the amount available for recreational use.

Would sir care for a starter? - Johnny Swan

No, I think I will move straight on to the intraveinous injection ay hard drugs - Mark Renton

'Trainspotting - fing great book.

I looked that up.. yikes.

If it was legal they wouldn't have the illegal stuff in front of them. It would be too much hassel.
You're being naive. The existing sources will not disappear just because its use has been legalised. Criminal organisations will still be able to provide the stuff at a cheaper rate and with fewer restrictions than government-sanctioned distributors, which will keep addicts coming to them for as long as the legal stocks do not undercut the illegal ones.

I'm against this plan, by the way.

Heroin? No, but 'shooting galleries' are, I think, still a good idea. Likewise, drugs offences should not be punished through the prisons system, but separately, through a different court structure that offers rehab and treatment.

Cannabis, LSD, Mushrooms, Khat, Ecstasy (?sp) and others that are not so damaging to long term health (according to a recent report (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2029203,00.html)) should be legalised, however. Prohibition serves no obvious purpose.

get it from afganistan, good for the local farmers.

Perhaps, but are those not under the thumb of the local warlords etc? I would not like to put investment into those areas.

Ecstasy

from what i've seen it can be quite dangerous. if they're going to legalise that maybe they should also offer free water on parties.

This is such a hard debate, for example where would the legal heroin come from, would presume legal farms?

Also who would you imploy to make the stuff, excriminal? Or train more people who would perhaps chase after the money and go and work illegally.

I think the biggest problem is the Heroin is a global problem and requires a global solution. Just personally I would be against a legalising of heroin in the UK unless it was part of a global effort.

Better to have rehab first I.

I think the government would grip it. I know they make grade A shit pot.. not sure exactly where it goes.. but they have the ability to make good shit.. or they buy that good shit from someone. I'm also sure they make some bap ass crap too. It would probably be the same with heroin. I personally wouldn't want the feds in control of my weed (I haven't smoked in years. but not cause im against it), but they are anyway, in some way or another .. IMO most drugs besides pot(since it's grown so easily.. doesnt have to be cultivated.. it grows its own buds= drug without tampering with it) are going through their hands .. if our government wasn't making some sort of cut or getting something in return .. the majority of this shit wouldn't make it's way in here. Sure some still would.. but no where near the amount. I've always believed that.

from what i've seen it can be quite dangerous. if they're going to legalise that maybe they should also offer free water on parties.

Actually, with Es over-hydration is also a problem.

It's one of those drugs where you may be fucking stoned out of your head, but you still need to be in touch with your body. You need to know when to drink water and when not to.

Actually, with Es over-hydration is also a problem.

It's one of those drugs where you may be fucking stoned out of your head, but you still need to be in touch with your body. You need to know when to drink water and when not to.
According to a met police investigation, it's one of the least harmful drugs out there in the long term. That said, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Actually, with Es over-hydration is also a problem.

It's one of those drugs where you may be fucking stoned out of your head, but you still need to be in touch with your body. You need to know when to drink water and when not to.

over-hydration? i've never heard of that personally. but to be honest i'm not really into drugs. how would that work then?

over-hydration? i've never heard of that personally. but to be honest i'm not really into drugs. how would that work then?
People afterwards sometimes drink litres and litres of water, panicking about dehydration, I think.

People afterwards sometimes drink litres and litres of water, panicking about dehydration, I think.

normally you'd have to puke when you drink to much water.

There is no valid reason for the state to dictate what you may or may not put in your own body.

You're being naive. The existing sources will not disappear just because its use has been legalised. Criminal organisations will still be able to provide the stuff at a cheaper rate and with fewer restrictions than government-sanctioned distributors

So eliminate government involvement altogether...there's no valid reason for it anyway.

over-hydration? i've never heard of that

Your body produces electrolytes at a more-or-less constant rate, so when you drink large quantities of plain water in a short period of time, the ratio of electrolytes to the amount of water in your body plummets, causing organ damage and often death.

normally you'd have to puke when you drink to much water.


or you could throw off your electrolytes .. water intoxication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication).. .. heart beat get irregular... and die. extreme, but it happens.

/offtopic -- was playing world of warcraft.. not sure how the subject got brought up.. but this electrolyte stuff did.. i mentioned it was when you dilute or lose your salts. well the knowitall night elf (god im like Bottle -- im racist against elves)totally denied that.. saying intake of salt dehydrates.. not hydrates.. which is right .. somewhat.. but she wasnt aware of the minerals .. sodiums.. salts in our bodies that keep shit working properly.. so i said .. well you know when the service "armed forces" are training their ppl they give them salt tabs so they don't freakin die from them long ass runs and strenuous activites in boot camp etc.. .. "well they don't know what the hell they are doing anyway" she was consistant it was only sugars needed.. no salts. I shut up.. hopefully she has learned better by now.. or fell out while running.

When Osmosis Attacks!

Your body produces electrolytes at a more-or-less constant rate, so when you drink large quantities of plain water in a short period of time, the ratio of electrolytes to the amount of water in your body plummets, causing organ damage and often death.

or you could throw off your electrolytes .. water intoxication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication).. .. heart beat get irregular... and die. extreme, but it happens.

ok, i know that you can die by drinking to much water, but under normal circumstances you would vomit befor you die, wouldn't you?

ok, i know that you can die by drinking to much water, but under normal circumstances you would vomit befor you die, wouldn't you?

*shrug* Not really.

Diarrhea and vomiting can result in very large electrolyte losses, and although drinking water will replace lost water, the lost electrolytes may not be adequately replaced, which can result in water intoxication.

*shrug* Not really.

wow

*never touches water again*

ok, i know that you can die by drinking to much water, but under normal circumstances you would vomit befor you die, wouldn't you?


I don;t know. I guess it would depend on the person. best bet is to never just drink plain old water when working out or when you arent eating or drninking anything else. always throw something else in there somewhere.. a soda..some beenie weenies.. something.



but i know one time i drank 3 gallons of a tea that was suppose to cleanse me of pot traces in my pee.. in 2 hours i drank 3 gallons.. but it wasnt just water.. im sure it had what my body needed.. but i didnt pass.

Soft drinks aren't going to help you.

Gatorade works wonders.

Anymore, Gatorade, water, milk, and (real) fruit juices are all I drink.

ok, i know that you can die by drinking to much water, but under normal circumstances you would vomit befor you die, wouldn't you?


also , under 'normal' circumstances you wouldnt drink enough to dioute your electrolytes. just know if you are sweating profusely or havent ate in a good while (not likely to happen) throw a soda or even a gatorade in there or something.. see gatorade has the electrolyte replenishment in it,, but ut also adds a lot of sugars.. which might be and must be good for athletes.. but for like babies etc that get sick with diharreah or vomiting.. there is pedialyte which has the electrolytes minus the sugars.

I think they have that now .. but it might be in-patient. It wouldn't be helping them any (besides keeping them from getting sick from not having it in em) .. it would be enabling them, not curing them, but yeah someone addicted to heroin or hell even cocaine or alcohol bad enough they have to be taken off gradually... or .. <delete>

They do, usually run by charities.

Soft drinks aren't going to help you.

Gatorade works wonders.

Anymore, Gatorade, water, milk, and (real) fruit juices are all I drink.

the reason i said a soda is becuase it would be better thann just water.. sodas have sodium. even if calorie free,, sugar free,.. they got sodium.. better than water when your body is lacking salts.

A lot of people,me included(use to) think that all they need to drnink is water.. not true.. like you said drink something besides water when you've been sweating .. or even eat something.. most foods have some amount of sodium in them.

Wasn't meaning at all that they should be the complete or main intake of liquids .. just a fix.

Yes, it should be legal for the following reasons:

Personal liberty
Removal of the black market
Stop wasting taxpayers' money on the "War on Drugs"
Lower crime rates
Fewer overdoses
Less disease
I like bulleted lists.

So eliminate government involvement altogether...there's no valid reason for it anyway.
The prime aim of state involvement would be to crack down on criminal gangs that distribute it to fund other, more dangerous activities. Argue all you want that people should be free to use whatever substances they feel like but there is always a supplier involved, and almost universally, money that is spent on "recreational" drugs is used in part to arm criminal organisations. The State has an obligation to prevent this, and the Legalisation of drugs is not the way to do it.

The prime aim of state involvement would be to crack down on criminal gangs that distribute it to fund other, more dangerous activities. Argue all you want that people should be free to use whatever substances they feel like but there is always a supplier involved, and almost universally, money that is spent on drugs is used in part to arm criminal organisations. The State has an obligation to prevent this. And the Legalisation of drugs will not prevent them from benefitting.

No, but regulation and commercialization will.

No, but regulation and commercialization will.


no it won't.

No, but regulation and commercialization will.
Hah. Like Criminals care about regulation, and will just allow themselves to be undercut by commercial sale. Organised Crime will always be able to provide them cheaper and more readily to addicts than commercial vending ever will.

Hah. Like Criminals care about regulation, and will just allow themselves to be undercut by commercial sale. Organised Crime will always be able to provide them cheaper and more readily to addicts than commercial vending ever will.

Then what happened to the alcohol bootlegging trade?

The State has an obligation to prevent this

It has no such obligation, precisely because (as you seem to indicate) it can not be done without infringing upon the liberties of those who would NOT cause harm to the person or property of others.

Thus, the state's only proper role is to punish the perpetrators after the fact, not to prevent violent crimes before they happen.

No, but regulation and commercialization will.

No specific regulation needed.

Just crack down on EVERYONE who steals, kills, assaults, and vandalizes, regardless of whether drugs are involved or not--which is one of the (very few) things government should be doing anyway.

Then what happened to the alcohol bootlegging trade?
Didn't you know? It's commonplace. The various offshoots of the IRA, for example, make quite a bit of money off of bootlegged Smirnoff vodka.

It has no such obligation, precisely because (as you seem to indicate) it can not be done without infringing upon the liberties of those who would NOT cause harm to the person or property of others.

Thus, the state's only proper role is to punish the perpetrators after the fact, not to prevent violent crimes before they happen.
The state exists to maintain, enforce and uphold the law of the land on behalf of the people in order to allow Society to function. It must therefore be able to identify and prevent violent crime; otherwise it would be powerless to prevent the inevitable destruction of law and order itself.

Didn't you know? It's commonplace. The various offshoots of the IRA, for example, make quite a bit of money off of bootlegged Smirnoff vodka.

Indian Rights Association?
Either way, is it anywhere near what it was like during alcohol prohibition? Is this revenue going to organized crime?

What about oil? Surely, it funds terrorism. Should we ban that, too?

Yes, it should be legal for the following reasons:
Personal libertyYou have the right to self-determination, yes, are you sure you are the only one that will be greatly affected? If I am the state, I'd say, "Go take lots of heroin you like, but don't go to a government hospital for a treatment. You decided to take it, you have been warned of the risks, then take the consequences. By knowingly taking heroin in the interest of self-determination, you have already forfeited your right to health. Sorry."

Removal of the black marketReally now? Look at the Netherlands: they legalized pot and have certain distributors sell it at a certain price. But a new black market sprouted out, this time selling them at lower prices. So the legal distributors got stuck with unsellable pot.

Stop wasting taxpayers' money on the "War on Drugs"Assuming the state is a very compassionate state and still covers folks' health requirements, we would also spend money on the health care of addicts. Either way, you still 'waste' money. For me, though, I think spending money to prevent damage to health is better than spending money to restore health.

Lower crime ratesAddiction will also impact your crime rates. Heroin is highly addictive, and if it is sold, even at a cheap price, the addiction can also cost much. Think of gambling - yes, gambling - some are addicted to it, and some will do criminal acts just to satisfy their craving.
Legalization won't probably impact crime rates. Rather, it'll make crime more diffuse, since you wouldn't know who to avoid. At least, I can avoid people who deal drugs.

Fewer overdosesHeroin is addictive. Fewer overdoses? Now that you can get it anywhere, the instances of overdose would be much higher.

Less diseaseIf legalized, heroin would be easily available, and people could be easily exposed to it and its ill effects. you [i]may have less ill effects due to contaminants (assuming that it is regulated... but recent cases shows us that even lettice and peanut butter aren't that regulated), the effects would me more widespread. It's just a case of either having a lump of black clay on your shirt (concentrated effects on a few) or spreading it all over (lesser effects but more widespread ).

I like bulleted lists.At least there's one thing I can agree with. ;)

The state exists to maintain, enforce and uphold the law of the land on behalf of the people in order to allow Society to function.

No, it doesn't.

The sole proper purpose of the state is to protect individual rights.

You have the right to self-determination, yes, are you sure you are the only one that will be greatly affected? If I am the state, I'd say, "Go take lots of heroin you like, but don't go to a government hospital for a treatment.
Fine with me. Government doesn't need to be running hospitals anyway.

At least in the US, hospital emergency rooms aren't allowed to refuse people that come to them for treatment--those laws should be abolished too. A hospital is a private organization just like any other, so it has every right to make its own decisions on who it will and will not treat based on whatever criteria it likes. If they want to treat drug addicts, great. If they don't, that's great, too.

Really now? Look at the Netherlands: they legalized pot and have certain distributors sell it at a certain price. But a new black market sprouted out, this time selling them at lower prices. So the legal distributors got stuck with unsellable pot.
The bolded part is the problem--they created a price floor. Without the price floor, it is doubtful this would happen--and even if it did, so what? The end (eliminating the black market) does not justify the means (outlawing pot).

Assuming the state is a very compassionate state and still covers folks' health requirements, we would also spend money on the health care of addicts. Either way, you still 'waste' money.
See, it shouldn't be doing that either. I should not be compelled, by force of law (backed up by the state's guns) to provide for another individual. If I choose to, by purchasing private insurance, that is my prerogative--but the choice should remain with me.

Addiction will also impact your crime rates. Heroin is highly addictive, and if it is sold, even at a cheap price, the addiction can also cost much.
Heroin's current legal status means there is a great deal of risk involved in its production and distribution. The producers and sellers expect to be compensated for their risk, and the street price reflects that.

The greatest fallacy of the drug warriors is thinking that black markets are somehow exempt from economic laws that govern legal markets. If anything, they are MORE susceptible to them, because of the absence of state interference.

Think of gambling - yes, gambling - some are addicted to it, and some will do criminal acts just to satisfy their craving. [I know of people who would steal so they can buy drugs, or folks who let their children go hungry just to have money to have a cigarette.]
Yes, and it would probably decrease with legalization, and not just for the reason I mentioned above.


Heroin is addictive. Fewer overdoses? Now that you can get it anywhere, the instances of overdose would be much higher.
So? Seriously, how the hell is this relevant? If someone wants to take those risks with his body, well, it's his body.

No, it doesn't.

The sole proper purpose of the state is to protect individual rights.
And what, pray tell, is a right?

And what, pray tell, is a right?

Metaphysicall, essentially, or substantially?

Yes, with restrictions.

Primarily, I don't think the government has a right to tell me what I can and can't put into my body.

However, legalising heroin and other drugs and allowing its sale through some form of official outlet (but maintaining restrictions upon who can legally produce it) will put a strong chokehold upon organised crime by severely limiting their ability to raise funds. Safe injecting rooms could be provided (and their use made a condition of purchase) to stop the sharing of syringes.

Legality doesn't mean everyone is going to run out and try it. It has enough of a bad stigma attached to it anyway.

QFT

No, not heroin.

You have the right to self-determination, yes, are you sure you are the only one that will be greatly affected? If I am the state, I'd say, "Go take lots of heroin you like, but don't go to a government hospital for a treatment. You decided to take it, you have been warned of the risks, then take the consequences. By knowingly taking heroin in the interest of self-determination, you have already forfeited your right to health. Sorry."

OK, along those lines, should we deny government hospitals to people who eat fast food? What about prisoners? Do they forfeit their health with conviction? (BTW, I don’t personally use heroin ;))

Really now? Look at the Netherlands: they legalized pot and have certain distributors sell it at a certain price. But a new black market sprouted out, this time selling them at lower prices. So the legal distributors got stuck with unsellable pot.

Look at alcohol. Once prohibition was repealed, the mob’s main source of funding was cut off. Sure, a smaller black market might still remain, just as it does for legal products (movies, CD’s)… should we ban those as well?

Assuming the state is a very compassionate state and still covers folks' health requirements, we would also spend money on the health care of addicts. Either way, you still 'waste' money. For me, though, I think spending money to prevent damage to health is better than spending money to restore health.

This is assuming that the only reason people don’t use heroin is because it is illegal. If it were legalized today, would you start shooting up? Also, the addition of a multi-billion dollar industry, tax revenue that comes with it, and new jobs would more than compensate. The enforcement of drug laws is far greater than the cost of healthcare for addicts, unless there is an unimaginable surge in overdoses and disease, which would not be the case even if the number of users went up.

Addiction will also impact your crime rates. Heroin is highly addictive, and if it is sold, even at a cheap price, the addiction can also cost much. Think of gambling - yes, gambling - some are addicted to it, and some will do criminal acts just to satisfy their craving.
Legalization won't probably impact crime rates. Rather, it'll make crime more diffuse, since you wouldn't know who to avoid. At least, I can avoid people who deal drugs.

If heroin is legal, you disassociate the users with the criminal underground. If you make your purchase at a regulated dispensary instead of from a street gang or the mob, there is less of a chance of you getting involved in the other activities they partake in. Also, when it becomes available cheaper and with less stigma attached, it becomes much more viable for someone to support their habit with a regular day job as opposed to a life of crime.

Heroin is addictive. Fewer overdoses? Now that you can get it anywhere, the instances of overdose would be much higher.

No, now that it would not be cut with hazardous chemicals, drug education programs would tell people correct dosage and not to mix it with other drugs (particularly alcohol), and people would have a safe environment to use the drug in, overdoses would go down. Most “heroin” overdoses are actually caused by a combination of drugs, not heroin alone.

If legalized, heroin would be easily available, and people could be easily exposed to it and its ill effects. you [i]may have less ill effects due to contaminants (assuming that it is regulated... but recent cases shows us that even lettice and peanut butter aren't that regulated), the effects would me more widespread. It's just a case of either having a lump of black clay on your shirt (concentrated effects on a few) or spreading it all over (lesser effects but more widespread ).

I was referring to the transmission of HIV and hepatitis. When clean needles are freely available and the stigma removed, users would be more likely to use them. Also, through a combination of drug education and a drop in price, users would be more likely to snort or smoke the drug (since injection is the most cost effective method).

Then what happened to the alcohol bootlegging trade?

Didn't stop anyone from drinking when they lifted it that's for sure.

Of course moonshine is still made illegally.. i don't understand that though. is it that it's too potent? or is that them good ole boys still just don't trust them revenuers?

Didn't stop anyone from drinking when they lifted it that's for sure.

Of course moonshine is still made illegally.. i don't understand that though. is it that it's too potent? or is that them good ole boys still just don't trust them revenuers?

There's nothing more cozy than a backwoods drug lab.

OK, along those lines, should we deny government hospitals to people who eat fast food? What about prisoners? Do they forfeit their health with conviction? (BTW, I don’t personally use heroin ;))
You actually have a point. But easting fast food is not directly detrimental to health. Provided it is eaten with moderation and there is exercise, it may not significantly harm you. It doesn't mean that if I eat at McDonald's, I would die of cardiovascular disease. There are still many areas where an intervention can be made to prevent disease from occurring.
Taking in heroin is different. Taking it in would directly harm your body, immediately, and you *knowingly* took the risk.
Anyway, that's just my hardline opinion. My practical one is that health problems are best addressed before it occurs ~ and that includes banning heroin.

Look at alcohol. Once prohibition was repealed, the mob’s main source of funding was cut off. Sure, a smaller black market might still remain, just as it does for legal products (movies, CD’s)… should we ban those as well?
A case of faulty analogy. You have left a vital premise here - that the products are directly harmful. CDs and DVDs aren't inherently harmful, heroin is.

This is assuming that the only reason people don’t use heroin is because it is illegal. If it were legalized today, would you start shooting up? Also, the addition of a multi-billion dollar industry, tax revenue that comes with it, and new jobs would more than compensate. The enforcement of drug laws is far greater than the cost of healthcare for addicts, unless there is an unimaginable surge in overdoses and disease, which would not be the case even if the number of users went up.
Ha. As one said, presently it had certain stigma attached. But wait for ten years or so, that'll disappear, and everyone's goin' to shoot up. That surge in overdoses, addiction, and disease is not at all unimaginable. Your health care cost will undoubtedly spike up. And if you want tax revenues and new jobs, you can get it somewhere else. With the negative effects of heroin, not only for users but for their offspring, I don't think it'll be wise to risk it just for multibillion dollar industry and what little tax you get.

If heroin is legal, you disassociate the users with the criminal underground. If you make your purchase at a regulated dispensary instead of from a street gang or the mob, there is less of a chance of you getting involved in the other activities they partake in. Also, when it becomes available cheaper and with less stigma attached, it becomes much more viable for someone to support their habit with a regular day job as opposed to a life of crime.
The difference is, heroin is highly addictive. It just isn't coffee or chocolate. It is addictive, and it is detrimental to your health. That detrimental effects can be severe enough to put you out of work. Now where'll you get the money to support your habit?
And, trust me, those criminal gangs would soon find another source of income should you take heroin away from them. Legalization does not solve the problem of crime syndicates, but attacking the crime syndicates directly will. It is possible that while you extinguish their source of income (legalization), you tackle them directly - it might be more effective. But given the risks involved with legalization, I'd say just tackle the problem straight up.

No, now that it would not be cut with hazardous chemicals, drug education programs would tell people correct dosage and not to mix it with other drugs (particularly alcohol), and people would have a safe environment to use the drug in, overdoses would go down. Most “heroin” overdoses are actually caused by a combination of drugs, not heroin alone.
The fact that it is addictive signifies that you are probable to take increasing and increasing doses of the drug, and eventually you would reach harmful levels. Everything has its limits, even your intake of sodium or iron. So, overdoses will be likely.
The truth is, it is the education that would minimize the risk, not the legalization. We can provide education about something even if it is illegal. Now picture this: due to education, we have reduced the risk. Now apply that risk to a small group (if heroin is banned) compared to that of a large group (if it is legalized). We would have more problems when it is legalized.

I was referring to the transmission of HIV and hepatitis. When clean needles are freely available and the stigma removed, users would be more likely to use them. Also, through a combination of drug education and a drop in price, users would be more likely to snort or smoke the drug (since injection is the most cost effective method).
Heroin itself does cause illness, a fact we may have disregarded in our discussion. The risk of HIV and hepatitis are just additional risks. Now, legalizing may remove this, but the risks from heroin itself still remain.

We are having a nice discussion here ;) , and you have been a great debater. But I'm logging off - I have two exams upcoming, and I need to sleep. Sorry if this'll thread be dead when I will have the chance to reply (but I won't dig it). Have a good day!

No. All drugs should be banned unless a medical purpose is found. Actually heroin interests me a bit as an opiate.

Anyway, that's just my hardline opinion. My practical one is that health problems are best addressed before it occurs ~ and that includes banning heroin.
Why?

It's my body.

If I want to ruin my health, why is that anyone's business but my own?

Ha. As one said, presently it had certain stigma attached. But wait for ten years or so, that'll disappear, and everyone's goin' to shoot up.
What do you base this on?

Certainly not tobacco--which, at least in the US, 75% of the population does NOT use on a regular basis even though it is legal--or alcohol--which is used by most of the population, but not to a damaging extent.

But, as I mentioned above, why is whether or not someone may cause harm to himself a relevant factor in public policy? Harm he may cause to others, sure--that's the whole point. But why does what he does to himself matter?

The difference is, heroin is highly addictive. It just isn't coffee or chocolate. It is addictive, and it is detrimental to your health. That detrimental effects can be severe enough to put you out of work. Now where'll you get the money to support your habit?
And, trust me, those criminal gangs would soon find another source of income should you take heroin away from them. Legalization does not solve the problem of crime syndicates,
No one's claiming it is--though it will likely severely diminish one avenue that is currently available to them.
but attacking the crime syndicates directly will.
Certainly. Theft, murder, assault, and vandalism need to be punished regardless of whether drugs are involved or not.

It is possible that while you extinguish their source of income (legalization), you tackle them directly - it might be more effective. But given the risks involved with legalization,
The only "risks" you have mentioned are simply one causing harm to oneself, of which, as I explained above, I fail to see the relevance in discussions of public policy.

Should heroin be made legal?

Seeing as (at least in the US) all current recreational drug prohibitions are based purely on racism*, which I view as immoral, illogical, and incorrect, I'd have to say yes -heroin should not be illegal on the current grounds.

*I've posted multiple references in the past. Look 'em up yourself this time.

How are the addicts going to pay for rehab? Especially when they're in prison and don't work...

And of course, there are no drugs in prison they can get hold of at all.

Yes, piss away your tax money on keeping drug addicts in jail, taking up space that could be occupied by people who are a much greater threat to society.

All prisoners should have to pay there way, there are plenty of jobs that can be done which no one else wants to do. They can pay for treatment by working like anyone else.

People who use drugs in general aren't just a threat to themselves, they are dangerous to other people away and need to be kept away from innocent people. They need to crack down on criminals, not go easier on them.

Ha. By this logic being black should be illegal, since there's a disproportionate amount of black criminals.

Can't see how you work that out, using drugs is illegal and should be punished. Changing the law simply because people do it anyway is downright idiotic.

A person's race is completely different as it's who they are, not what they do or what they choose to be. If someone breaks the law and does something illegal they should face the consequences, simple as.

According to a met police investigation, it's one of the least harmful drugs out there in the long term. That said, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Ecstasy itself is does not cause long term harm, but when you do consume it, your body doesn't adjust properly to the effects, so you don't know when you're thirsty or hungry, so you have to be conscious of your body.

over-hydration? i've never heard of that personally. but to be honest i'm not really into drugs. how would that work then?

Over-hydration is when you take in more liquid than your body can expel.

The only case I remember happened in a city east of Toronto, Ajax. A girl was at a party and was under-age. A combination of a young body, drugs and a lack of awareness resulted her dying of water intoxication.

It happens because a person is not in touch with their body while tripping.

It happens because a person is not in touch with their body while tripping.

*shrug* They don't have to be tripping. Happens to marathon runners too, or people sitting around in the hot sun drinking a lot of water.

All prisoners should have to pay there way, there are plenty of jobs that can be done which no one else wants to do. They can pay for treatment by working like anyone else.
Yup.

People who use drugs in general aren't just a threat to themselves, they are dangerous to other people away and need to be kept away
An assertion not borne out by the facts. The vast majority of drug-related violent crime is due not to the psychosomatic effects of drugs themselves but instead are related to either (a) attempts to get money to pay for the drug habit or (b) "turf wars" between criminal gangs that are predisposed to break the law anyway.

Any economist will tell you that legalization of drugs will, by eliminating much of the risk, drive the price way down, which will take care of "a". With "b", by legalizing the recreational drug trade and putting it in the hands of legitimate businessmen you'll be largely eliminating one avenue by which criminal gangs fund their operations.

And even if this were not the case, so what? There are undoubtedly at least SOME (in fact, the overwhelming majority) who are able to use recreational drugs without the drugs themselves inducing them to violence. So why not leave them alone, and punish those who engage in violent acts regardless of whether they're stoned or stone sober?



Can't see how you work that out, using drugs is illegal and should be punished.
That's an is/ought fallacy--you're essentially saying that because X is illegal, it should be illegal, which is not a valid argument.

It may indeed be the case that X should be illegal, but it is fallacious to give the fact (if it is indeed the case) that it is currently illegal as support for why it should be illegal. Whether or not a given act should be illegal is independent of its present legal status.

Changing the law simply because people do it anyway is downright idiotic.
I don't think anyone's making that argument.

After all, that would mean that since people commit murder anyway, murder should be legalized--and I doubt anyone here is prepared to agree with that. I know I'm certainly not.

Please stick to the arguments that are actually presented rather than putting words in others' mouths.

While it happens when sober, I was referring strictly to those using drugs, specifically Es.

Even so, it's not necessarily because they're 'out of touch with their bodies'. No more than anyone else would be, when it comes to hydration.

*shrug* They don't have to be tripping. Happens to marathon runners too, or people sitting around in the hot sun drinking a lot of water.
While it happens when sober, I was referring strictly to those using drugs, specifically Es.

Marijuana is a Class A controlled substance in the US. Most other Western countries it's Class C. And yet it's reported to be the single biggest cash crop in the country (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6193073.stm). Whether that's accurate or not, it illustrates that the criminalisation of marijuana has had no effect on its recreational use.
The punishment vastly outweighs the crime. For this reason the War On Drugs is not just.

Decriminalising a currently banned substance doesn't mean it's gonna turn up in your local 7-11. Alcohol and tobacco have restrictions on sale. And a hell of a lot of people don't smoke cigarettes even though they're legal. It's a huge assumption that vast numbers of people are going to sudenly start using heroin or anything else simply because of a change in legal status.

Cinemas in Melbourne have blue lighting in the bathrooms, because it makes it harder to find a vein. Needle exchangers walk through the CBD at night carrying shooting kits and wearing discreet badges, and any user can approach them for a clean needle without fear of harassment or arrest.
And during the three years I lived there not a week went by that I wasn't offered heroin by some street dealer, right out in the open. And yet I was never even remotely tempted to buy their product. Its legal status had nothing to do with that choice. But criminalisation had absolutely no effect on its availablility.

Most overdoses occur when the product is a bit purer than usual. Most street heroin is fairly cut by the time it filters down to the street. Occasionally some relatively un-cut heroin makes it out, and users give themselves the same dose they'd usually take, and end up ODing because it's so much purer. Most overdoses are accidents - it's not like your average user is constantly trying to commit suicide.
Other than its addictivity obviously, the 'danger' of a measured heroin dose is actually very low - it's a refined form of morphine after all, and we still use that medicinally in surgeries without mishap.

Finally, why the hell is it a criminal act for me to pick a psilocybin mushroom growing in a field and eat it? Who am I harming? If I commit a harmful act while under the influence of this substance then I would expect to be charged, just as anyone committing a crime under the influence of alcohol - the substance doesn't diminish my responsibility for my actions.

Phew!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

Drugs regulation can cause a great number of problems. Government intervention in such matters usually has the opposite effect of that intended. This comes from the fact that we assume that the government is made up of people who are not stupid. A government's stupidity is magnified in relation to the proportion of stupid people in general society as it is made up of people who want to be in government.

The only positive thing about heroin being illegal I can see is that without the legislation 'Trainspotting' would never have been written. Which seems a bit of a price to pay.


Shit man, yeah legalise all drugs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

Drugs regulation can cause a great number of problems. Government intervention in such matters usually has the opposite effect of that intended. This comes from the fact that we assume that the government is made up of people who are not stupid. A government's stupidity is magnified in relation to the proportion of stupid people in general society as it is made up of people who want to be in government.

The only positive thing about heroin being illegal I can see is that without the legislation 'Trainspotting' would never have been written. Which seems a bit of a price to pay.

No. While I support the legalization of many types of drugs, this is not one of them.

I have personally seen people destroyed by heroin - in a long progression from ruining their own lives, destroying their families, and ultimately, dying from it.

If we were to legalize it, we should make places where the addicts can go and shoot up until they die.

When deciding the legalization question, it is important to look at the total effect and not focus too narrowly. The costs involved extend beyond the individual user – everything from health care resources to law enforcement is affected.

Prohibition does not work. Period.

Decriminalizing drugs will not substantially change its availability nor will it suddenly change people’s likelihood to use drugs. Arguing that the legal status is the only reason why most people are not heroin addicts is absurd.

The US spends billions of dollars in the ‘war on drugs’ for negligible impact.
Simple economics – if a product has a 3000% profit margin, there will be suppliers.
This money is thus wasted on creating a violent criminal element in society, persecuting those who use drugs, and squandering valuable resources better used elsewhere.

A majority of violence in the city of Baltimore is drug related. This is not from the drug users themselves (though they obviously commit violent acts as well) but stem from the drug trade. Decriminalization would eliminate the violence caused by turf warfare between rival gangs selling drugs as well as vastly reduce the finances of these criminal organizations. Legalize drugs and you cut violence in urban areas by more than half (at least in Baltimore, but I suspect other cities are not that different).

Law enforcement spends a substantial amount of resources in tracking down those involved in the drug trade, prosecuting them, and housing them in prison. Additionally, the number of non-violent drug users in prisons points to a serious problem for anyone with a sense of individual liberty – these people have caused no harm, yet society is diminished by expending scarce resources to remove a productive member of society.

Decriminalization would result in the price of drugs falling substantially (the actual production cost is negligible compared to the risk premium built into the price) with a great improvement in quality of product. This would allow drugs to be very safe as they would be free from potentially dangerous contaminants and dosage could be accurately measured to drastically reduce overdoses. A small tax could be added (much like what is done to tobacco products) to pay for treatment of addicts and education programs. Even a substantial tax could be imposed without allowing sufficient profit margins for smuggling to be worth the risk.

Due to the current wide availability of drugs I highly doubt use will rise with decriminalization. There is also the potential that removing the antiestablishment counterculture appeal would result in a reduction in use, especially among teenagers. Depending on how available it becomes, it may be easier to acquire and thus facilitate use. I suspect these will probably balance out in the end.

End result
-major victory for individual rights
-substantial savings on law enforcement and criminal justice system
-vastly improved safety for drug users
-elimination of a very violent criminal industry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm

Drugs regulation can cause a great number of problems. Government intervention in such matters usually has the opposite effect of that intended. This comes from the fact that we assume that the government is made up of people who are not stupid. A government's stupidity is magnified in relation to the proportion of stupid people in general society as it is made up of people who want to be in government.

The only positive thing about heroin being illegal I can see is that without the legislation 'Trainspotting' would never have been written. Which seems a bit of a price to pay.
Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with booze, and it doesn't work with smack. All it does is it makes drug dealers and criminals richer.

Really now? Look at the Netherlands: they legalized pot and have certain distributors sell it at a certain price. But a new black market sprouted out, this time selling them at lower prices. So the legal distributors got stuck with unsellable pot.

I happen to be dutch, and smoke pot, and one thing I have to say is that although you are right, there is a black market.. it is absolutely wrong the legal distributers cannot sell there pot, because the pot sold illegaly outside the coffeeshops are so much more likely to be contaminated, filthy, low-quality or plain wrong. that I for one by my pot either at a legal distributor or from people whose plants I have seen grow and dry A.K.A. people I can trust... but since those people don't grow on trees I am usually restricted to coffeshops..

Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with booze, and it doesn't work with smack. All it does is it makes drug dealers and criminals richer.

Which is why I propose the following:


For "less harmless drugs" such as pot - full legalization. Buy your pot from Reynolds Tobacco.

For more harmful drugs (crack, meth, heroin), the government gives it away for free - all you have to do is come live in a government-run facility where you can be high 24/7 until you die.

F*** no!

Yes. My sig carries the rationale.

Yes. My sig carries the rationale.

That's not an argument.

That's not an argument.

Heh I beg to differ I think perhaps that it is the only valid argument. We are all free(or we should be) to live as we will.

Heh I beg to differ I think perhaps that it is the only valid argument. We are all free(or we should be) to live as we will.
Wow. Someone on NSG actually agrees with something I said. That hasn't happened since MeansToAnEnd and The Five Castes disappeared.

Heh I beg to differ I think perhaps that it is the only valid argument. We are all free(or we should be) to live as we will.
the undoing of this fallacy:
(1) if everyone were free to live as they would, then one entity would wish to control another entity.
(2) since condition (1) presents a limitation on the freedom of the second entity, there must exist rules preventing one from interfering with the living-as-we-would of another.
(3) however, the existence of rules in the domain of living-as-we-would violates the premise.

ergo, absolute freedom cannot exist when any two entities are within, say, the radius of an ICBM.

nothing, with exceptions i am not thinking of immediately, can be legalized that endangers the lives of those in proximity to the abuser. that's like saying drunk driving should be legalized because it would be cheaper than prosecution.

Total freedom over themselves precludes freedom over each other, because that would infringe upon that person's individual freedom.

As long as you're not doing that, I have no reason to stop you from doing anything.

Total freedom over themselves precludes freedom over each other, because that would infringe upon that person's individual freedom.

As long as you're not doing that, I have no reason to stop you from doing anything.
hence a rule of interaction, and the breakdown i already demonstrated. your if-then condition is a matter of opinion since an action limiting freedom is by its nature an opinion. since you have now attached a condition under which you would act to prevent the freedom of another, you must present the limits of your own freedom. no interaction can exist without some laws governing it, and this therefore requires that absolute freedom cannot exist.

hence a rule of interaction, and the breakdown i already demonstrated. your if-then condition is a matter of opinion since an action limiting freedom is by its nature an opinion. since you have now attached a condition under which you would act to prevent the freedom of another, you must present the limits of your own freedom. no interaction can exist without some laws governing it, and this therefore requires that absolute freedom cannot exist.
I didn't call for absolute freedom, just individual freedom. You have freedom over you.

Off topic I know, but @thread creator: we have almost the same name! did you mean the same thing I did or is it just a coincidence?