Controversial Harsh idea

[Michael K.]

Yep, people dying from a sip of alcohol they bought that they thought was soda pop. Jesus dude. You're a trip.

What does this even mean?

It means you trying to say Alcohol kills more people is a straw man. It does NOT kill someone because they bought something filled full of shit that will kill them, even though that isn't an ingredient. The next time you read of someone dying from a fentanyl overdose from an alcohol purchase? By all means, please use this example. It'll then be one versus many.

As for the rest of what you are saying? I can't even follow you anymore. The bottom line is, fentanyl is an issue for me because it is being used as a filler in other drugs, and then killing people. Drugs sold on the streets are not regulated. Marijuana is legal, people still sell it illegally. If you believe legalizing fentanyl is A. a good idea or B. will cure the problem? You and I won't agree.

Do people die from taking the drugs they know they were buying? Sure, of course, but that isn't what I am saying here. I am debating your belief that buying drugs on the street is always a victimless crime between two people that are both aware of exactly what is being bought and sold.

[DanielVogelbach]

It means you trying to say Alcohol kills more people is a straw man.

It actually does kill more.

https://www.caron.org/blog/alcohol-is-k ... d-epidemic

But, that's besides the point anyway. The point is that you have every right to encourage someone to quit drinking. However, you have no moral right to use force to interfere with an alcohol transaction, just like you have no moral right to aggressively interfere with a fentanyl transaction.

Here's another one. Someone says they want to climb a mountain with no ropes. Maybe not a good idea. Do you have the right to stop them?

The Non Aggression Principle isn't complicated.

[DanielVogelbach]

The bottom line is, fentanyl is an issue for me because it is being used as a filler in other drugs, and then killing people. Drugs sold on the streets are not regulated. Marijuana is legal, people still sell it illegally. If you believe legalizing fentanyl is A. a good idea or B. will cure the problem? You and I won't agree.

I don't believe in "legalizing" anything. I believe in the Non Aggression Principle. When you have two people making a transaction and both parties consent to the terms, then no "government" has any legitimate authority to interfere. Furthermore, no "government" has any right to levy taxes on the transaction. No "government" has any right to require that you have any sort of license to perform the transaction.

It is not a matter of "curing the problem". It's a matter of freeing the world, so that we can prosper as much as possible. Instead, we use things like drugs to justify the existence of armed criminal gangs called "governments".

[douche]

The pathway to change centers around non-compliance and self-reliance.

That would likely solve the problem of overpopulation. Most people aren't self-reliant so they would simply go away.

[Michael K.]

It means you trying to say Alcohol kills more people is a straw man.

It actually does kill more.

https://www.caron.org/blog/alcohol-is-k ... d-epidemic

But, that's besides the point anyway. The point is that you have every right to encourage someone to quit drinking. However, you have no moral right to use force to interfere with an alcohol transaction, just like you have no moral right to aggressively interfere with a fentanyl transaction.

Here's another one. Someone says they want to climb a mountain with no ropes. Maybe not a good idea. Do you have the right to stop them?

The Non Aggression Principle isn't complicated.

It is a strawman, because the two aren't related. Again, point out the next time someone died after a sip of alcohol that they purchased because it was laced with fentanyl. You are comparing apples to oranges. More people die in accidental car wrecks than are murdered. Do you suggest those two things are similar. Again, it's a strawman.

[DanielVogelbach]

It is a strawman, because the two aren't related. Again, point out the next time someone died after a sip of alcohol that they purchased because it was laced with fentanyl. You are comparing apples to oranges. More people die in accidental car wrecks than are murdered. Do you suggest those two things are similar. Again, it's a strawman.

I feel like I'm making a repeat post here, but I'll try again...

#1 Alcohol is indeed a very dangerous and deadly drug. I never said anything about it killing after one sip or being laced with fentanyl, just that it's very dangerous and not really attacked in the media. I think the odds of getting alcohol laced with fentanyl are approximately 0%, which is also the same odds you have for getting marijuana laced with fentanyl. In general, the less you criminalize a substance, the better chance you have for getting it unadulterated and accurately labeled. Accurately labeled dosages would probably reduce overdose deaths by about 90%.

#2 The danger of alcohol and it's impact on society is really just a side-note. The main point is that no matter what someone is doing, just because you think it's dangerous for them doesn't give you the right to forcefully stop them. This includes everything from eating chocolate cake to shooting heroin to climbing a mountain with no ropes or doing a tight rope act across two skyscrapers with no harness or net or doing a stunt jump on a motorcycle like Evil Knevil. It's the same way for anyone engaging in any sort of non aggressive behavior that you don't like. There are things you could do to try and persuade opinion or behavior, but you can't morally use force, because nobody is aggressing against you.

I personally think a lot of people spend their money on dumb shit. But, if I was a dictator, I would let them continue to spend their money on whatever they wanted. If they're not using aggression, then nobody has any right to force them to do anything. This is just basic morality. If you have two parties that consent to engage in a drug transaction or gambling or prostitution or adultery, it is fine for you to dislike it or think the participants will rot in hell for it, but if there is no aggression towards anyone and consent by all participants then you have no moral right to use aggression. There is no crime committed in a drug transaction until the guy with the uniform and badge shows up and starts throwing people around.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

It is a strawman, because the two aren't related. Again, point out the next time someone died after a sip of alcohol that they purchased because it was laced with fentanyl. You are comparing apples to oranges. More people die in accidental car wrecks than are murdered. Do you suggest those two things are similar. Again, it's a strawman.

I feel like I'm making a repeat post here, but I'll try again...

#1 Alcohol is indeed a very dangerous and deadly drug. I never said anything about it killing after one sip or being laced with fentanyl, just that it's very dangerous and not really attacked in the media. I think the odds of getting alcohol laced with fentanyl are approximately 0%, which is also the same odds you have for getting marijuana laced with fentanyl. In general, the less you criminalize a substance, the better chance you have for getting it unadulterated and accurately labeled. Accurately labeled dosages would probably reduce overdose deaths by about 90%.

#2 The danger of alcohol and it's impact on society is really just a side-note. The main point is that no matter what someone is doing, just because you think it's dangerous for them doesn't give you the right to forcefully stop them. This includes everything from eating chocolate cake to shooting heroin to climbing a mountain with no ropes or doing a tight rope act across two skyscrapers with no harness or net or doing a stunt jump on a motorcycle like Evil Knevil. It's the same way for anyone engaging in any sort of non aggressive behavior that you don't like. There are things you could do to try and persuade opinion or behavior, but you can't morally use force, because nobody is aggressing against you.

I personally think a lot of people spend their money on dumb shit. But, if I was a dictator, I would let them continue to spend their money on whatever they wanted. If they're not using aggression, then nobody has any right to force them to do anything. This is just basic morality. If you have two parties that consent to engage in a drug transaction or gambling or prostitution or adultery, it is fine for you to dislike it or think the participants will rot in hell for it, but if there is no aggression towards anyone and consent by all participants then you have no moral right to use aggression. There is no crime committed in a drug transaction until the guy with the uniform and badge shows up and starts throwing people around.

Your ideas on the world would certainly "Thin the herd".

[gil]

It is a strawman, because the two aren't related. Again, point out the next time someone died after a sip of alcohol that they purchased because it was laced with fentanyl. You are comparing apples to oranges. More people die in accidental car wrecks than are murdered. Do you suggest those two things are similar. Again, it's a strawman.

I feel like I'm making a repeat post here, but I'll try again...

#1 Alcohol is indeed a very dangerous and deadly drug. I never said anything about it killing after one sip or being laced with fentanyl, just that it's very dangerous and not really attacked in the media. I think the odds of getting alcohol laced with fentanyl are approximately 0%, which is also the same odds you have for getting marijuana laced with fentanyl. In general, the less you criminalize a substance, the better chance you have for getting it unadulterated and accurately labeled. Accurately labeled dosages would probably reduce overdose deaths by about 90%.

#2 The danger of alcohol and it's impact on society is really just a side-note. The main point is that no matter what someone is doing, just because you think it's dangerous for them doesn't give you the right to forcefully stop them. This includes everything from eating chocolate cake to shooting heroin to climbing a mountain with no ropes or doing a tight rope act across two skyscrapers with no harness or net or doing a stunt jump on a motorcycle like Evil Knevil. It's the same way for anyone engaging in any sort of non aggressive behavior that you don't like. There are things you could do to try and persuade opinion or behavior, but you can't morally use force, because nobody is aggressing against you.

I personally think a lot of people spend their money on dumb shit. But, if I was a dictator, I would let them continue to spend their money on whatever they wanted. If they're not using aggression, then nobody has any right to force them to do anything. This is just basic morality. If you have two parties that consent to engage in a drug transaction or gambling or prostitution or adultery, it is fine for you to dislike it or think the participants will rot in hell for it, but if there is no aggression towards anyone and consent by all participants then you have no moral right to use aggression. There is no crime committed in a drug transaction until the guy with the uniform and badge shows up and starts throwing people around.

Or unless there are predictable externalities from the drug use and sales, like car jackings and randomly shooting (and missing) your rival dealers. If the effects of a drug transaction were limited to the parties of the transaction, fine, let it be. But the effects are not limited and it's predictable. I'm not in favor of drug laws to protect the users; I'm not the morality police. I do believe in regulating externalities.

[Michael K.]

#1 Alcohol is indeed a very dangerous and deadly drug. I never said anything about it killing after one sip or being laced with fentanyl

Which is WHY this is a strawman. Because, my entire point has been that people are buying drugs that are laced with fentanyl, and then dying. THAT was my response to you saying selling drugs if fine because it is a transaction between two people that both know what they are doing. WHEN someone dies from something in the drug that they did not know was in the drug!? THAT is when your debate loses credibility, and THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WAS DISCUSSION. So, bringing up alcohol is a StrawMan at best and completely irrelevant to the topic at worst. Please, what the fuck does people dying from the long term effects of abusing alcohol have to do with what I said. Also, do you really think that people drinking alcohol die at a HIGHER percentage than those that abuse drugs? It's like saying more people die from auto accidents than jumping off a bridge, so we should make cars illegal and legalize jumping off a bridge.

[Grandma Lynn]

If you think the government was
corrupt before, what do you think
of it now!