Controversial Harsh idea

[DanielVogelbach]

#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.

Alcohol is relevant, since it's dangerous and drags down society. But, you have every right to produce it, sell it, or consume it. You don't have the right to force your opinion on the morality of alcohol on to anyone. You don't have the right to kidnap anyone for selling or consuming it. You can put whatever drug you want to into the equation. The morality never changes.

Now, if the effect of a drug impairs judgement, and the person commits a crime, then at that point there's actual unlawful activity. If you get high on crack and go rob a bank, then we have an actual crime.

Mountain climbing, sky diving, eating junk food, drinking alcohol, gambling, prostitution, adultery. These might not be the safest or most desirable things. But, if there's no aggression being used, then there's no moral ground to use aggression against the consenting parties.

I'm not advocating for anyone to use or sell drugs, but I'm advocating for objective morality. If people are selling fentanyl, and the customers are not being forced to buy anything, then there is are no moral grounds to forcefully interfere with that.

It would be moral and humanitarian to try and convince and persuade people to voluntarily stop selling or using dangerous drugs. Or, you could work on ways to improve society. Increasing the amount of love and prosperity in the world will always reduce degenerate behavior. But, you can't morally use aggression towards non aggressive people. This extends beyond the kidnapping of drug dealers and also includes things like forcing people to have a license to drive, a passport to travel, or pay taxes on their property. Basically, if someone is minding their own business, then nobody has any legitimate authority to interfere with that. If you disagree with that, then you're a socialist, collectivist, communist, etc.

[DanielVogelbach]

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

Always getting worse. Government only moves in one direction - it gets bigger and more up in your business.

[DanielVogelbach]

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

It's really jut a super basic idea that "government" is simply a group of people claiming authority over others. But, there's no legitimacy to the authority, because nobody gave consent. Democracy is a scam to obfuscate this. It's much more obvious if you're talking about a king or dictator. But, there's no difference. The power still comes from people following orders. We're basically being forced to elect new dictators every few years. Plus, all of the politicians are bought and paid for anyway.

I think free markets lead to peace, love, prosperity, and happiness. However, I think a purely free market is just theoretical. The same goes for pure freedom. It's more of a sliding scale. I just think the more freedom, the better results. People always think freedom means people will go on crime sprees. To that I say that the government is the group of armed thugs people are concerned will take over in the absence of government.

So, I really don't know about thinning the herd. I think the elites that control the governments have their own methods for that. I can mention, though, that freedom can sometimes be more dangerous than slavery. The lion at the zoo has no threats and never has to worry about a meal.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

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

It's really jut a super basic idea that "government" is simply a group of people claiming authority over others. But, there's no legitimacy to the authority, because nobody gave consent. Democracy is a scam to obfuscate this. It's much more obvious if you're talking about a king or dictator. But, there's no difference. The power still comes from people following orders. We're basically being forced to elect new dictators every few years. Plus, all of the politicians are bought and paid for anyway.

I think free markets lead to peace, love, prosperity, and happiness. However, I think a purely free market is just theoretical. The same goes for pure freedom. It's more of a sliding scale. I just think the more freedom, the better results. People always think freedom means people will go on crime sprees. To that I say that the government is the group of armed thugs people are concerned will take over in the absence of government.

So, I really don't know about thinning the herd. I think the elites that control the governments have their own methods for that. I can mention, though, that freedom can sometimes be more dangerous than slavery. The lion at the zoo has no threats and never has to worry about a meal.

Dude, you are nutty.

We need government. Without who would create the rules that we live by. Who would enforce those rules, and who would punish those that don't abide by those rules.

Without government, we have the old west where the fastest gun wins.

Granted, our government has run rampant, and drastically needs to be reduced, but we still need some form of government.

[Michael K.]

Alcohol is relevant, since it's dangerous and drags down society. But, you have every right to produce it, sell it, or consume it. You don't have the right to force your opinion on the morality of alcohol on to anyone. You don't have the right to kidnap anyone for selling or consuming it. You can put whatever drug you want to into the equation. The morality never changes.

Again, this is a strawman. Alcohol has no relevance in the statement I made to you that you refuse to discuss. The REASON drug deals are NOT a transaction between two willing parties is because one party is often times not aware of what they are buying. In a legal transaction? That would be a crime. The reason bankers go to jail is because they sell someone a retirement plan that is bullshit. The Mortgage crisis many years back? Lots of home loans going through that shouldn't have, appraisals being made that just so happen to equal the asking price, shit like that. It was a CRIME. Your entire reasoning for saying drug deals are fine is bogus. People are dying because they are buying a product that is laced with something dangerous, because the manufacturer wanted to cut costs. Again, my response was LITTERALY to your statement that drug deals are sales between two knowing parties. If you can find me something that lets me know that people are dying from alcohol they purchased that is laced with a filler that kills them? I'll admit that this is a valid argument. Sorry, it's not. It's a strawman...you are being sensational with something to try and prove your point. And it's dumb.

Non of what you are saying addresses the point. Buying alcohol is NOT EVEN CLOSE to buying drugs. Drugs are NOT always a transaction between two parties.

Over 150 people die every day from overdoses related to synthetic opioids like fentanyl. Drugs may contain deadly levels of fentanyl, and you wouldn't be able to see it, taste it, or smell it.

150 times 365. 54,750 a year.

There are 2,200 alcohol poisoning deaths in the US each year. Alcohol poisoning deaths: Most people who die are 35-64 years old.

Yeah, same thing.

[DanielVogelbach]

Michael,

#1 Most alcohol deaths are not "alcohol poisoning". They're either long term health effects or alcohol related car crashes, etc.

#2 It doesn't matter at all how dangerous, safe, or beneficial to society anything is with regards to your right to participate. You have the right to climb a mountain with no ropes. You have a right to go skydiving. You have the right to swim with sharks. You even have a right to gamble, hire a prostitute, or cheat on your wife. With regards to society, if you stay inside and play video games all day, that's not very beneficial to the so-called "greater good", but it's perfectly within your rights. You have the same right to purchase or shoot fentanyl as you do to post on the Marinertalk.com forums. It's called freedom, and you either advocate for freedom or slavery. There is no in between. This is the key point.

What you don't have the right to do is use aggression to interfere with an otherwise peaceful transaction. At that point you become the criminal. It doesn't matter if the transaction is for drugs, guns, or pokemon cards.

If there are two people in the woods shooting fentanyl, would you seriously go confront them with a gun and kidnap them for their "crime"? The only people that would ever go fuck with someone minding their own business are the "law enforcement" officers enforcing illegitimate "laws" passed by politicians working for their masters while pretending to represent the masses.

It's good to recognize that streets full of junkies is a problem. It's not good to view "government" as having any legitimate authority whatsoever to fine or imprison those involved.

[douche]

https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/tr ... eath-rates

There were 106,699 drug-involved overdose deaths reported in the U.S. in 2021; 69% of cases occurred among males. Synthetic opioids other than methadone (primarily fentanyl) were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021.

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/ex ... eaths.html

Excessive alcohol use was responsible for more than 140,000 deaths in the United States each year during 2015–2019, or more than 380 deaths per day.

[DanielVogelbach]

We need government. Without who would create the rules that we live by. Who would enforce those rules, and who would punish those that don't abide by those rules.

Without government, we have the old west where the fastest gun wins.

Granted, our government has run rampant, and drastically needs to be reduced, but we still need some form of government.

There's really no such thing as "government" There are only people. There is only human nature. "Government" is just some mythological Santa Claus shit to make people think one group has legitimate authority over the other because they happen to be geographically located within some imaginary lines. Democracy is another gigantic scam to justify tyranny.

We "need government" about as much as we need a baseball bat shoved up our ass. 99% of problems are legislated into existence. "Government" only serves the ruling class that controls it. It's a criminal organization with perceived legitimacy. Statism is the biggest religion out there. People seriously believe in politics. I was one of those people for a long time.

Rules are fine. It is perfectly within your rights to make a decree that carries a threat of punishment. But, this is different than "laws" in the following ways:

1. The person making the threat is the one that carries out the punishment.

2. The threat does not require election or consensus. It can be made by one person or a thousand people jointly. The threats are not seen as the "will of the people", but rather the intentions of the group sending the warning.

3. Legitimacy of the threats would not be judged by who made the threats, but by whether or not the punishment is appropriate for the crime committed. Nobody should feel obligated to agree with or abide by a threat if they deem it to be unfair or unjustified.

4. Such warnings should not pretend to alter morality or make up any new "crimes", nor should anyone imagine such warnings to be legitimate simply because they were issued (the way people now view authoritarian "laws") Instead, such warnings would simply constitute statements about what those making the threats believe to be justified. Therefore, instead of using the authoritarian formula of "We hereby make the following illegal", the warnings would fit into the template, "I believe that if you do this, then I have the right to respond in this way".

[douche]

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fentanyl is a synthetic opioid so powerful that it is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. It is often found in counterfeit pills and mixed with other drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. Unless tested, it is nearly impossible to detect if street drugs are laced with fentanyl.

[DanielVogelbach]

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fentanyl is a synthetic opioid so powerful that it is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. It is often found in counterfeit pills and mixed with other drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. Unless tested, it is nearly impossible to detect if street drugs are laced with fentanyl.

It's impossible to tell what additives are in processed foods unless you read the label. Even then, you're trusting the manufacturer and trusting the label.

Free drug testing is another way to reduce harm. This is sometimes implemented at music festivals where large amounts of drugs are consumed.
They typically will also have EMTs on site. This can help prevent a person mistakenly consuming fentanyl. Also there is Narcan, which will pretty much save the life of anyone experiencing an opiate overdose. It instantly stops the effects. So, making that freely available would reduce harm. Also, making clean drugs with clear labels and dosages will drastically reduce harm. People won't overdose if they know exactly how many milligrams they're ingesting.

Harm reduction is good, I guess. If you can stop an overdose, then that buys the person time to turn their life around. But, I don't think it addresses the root causes that can lead a person down a path towards homelessness or drug addiction. All of that is born out of our system. (financial, government, education)

Sometimes you gotta just ask yourself why the drugs exist. Why do earthquakes and hurricanes happen? Sometimes you gotta have faith in God's plan. But, at the same time it would be great if we could improve the system and the livelihoods of ourselves and the people in our communities. Same thing when the hurricane hits, we try to rescue as many people as we can. We only have ourselves to blame. People like to blame the leaders, but the leaders have no power without their followers.