Daniel06 says that I “simply find the act of consuming potentially harmful drugs 'immoral' regardless of the fact that scientifically the consequences of doing so are in the majority benign?” This is a deception.

All read my posts and you’ll see my position is - it is wrong for a government to allow illicit drugs because of the fact that scientifically the negative consequences for the health of users doing so are well proven and that the pro-drug lobby are actually relying on a flawed moral response without considering other consequences to drug addicts and to the wider community. Moreover, they have no scientific or proof that legalising drugs won’t do immeasurable harm in the future. That the pro-legalisation lobby have relied on uncertain and often arbitrary research and presented it as conclusive evidence has shown a lack of intellectual rigour. The pro-drug evidence is weighted because the researchers haven’t asked “What can be done?” but “Let’s prove drug legislation is harmful (and in your case depending how it supports your argument let’s prove illicit drugs are harmless and ordinary folk are stupid and need to shut the faack up)”. So the “evidence” comes from the position of trying to prove an established position.

You need to work on your honesty and analytical skills.

Moreover and i.e.
A BA would distinguish readily between a “claim” and “implying” between a direct claim and a simile . You are “like” a religious zealot and “you leave Bible bashers for dead” clearly implies a moral position. How you gleaned that I “claimed that [you][were] a religious zealot in another post” is beyond me? It suggests you’re justifying your own slagging. Your attention to detail and ability to put your own self-interest aside is poor. An ethics student name-calling and behaving like a snob/bully? Hmmm. Fail. A marker would report you to the Faculty Head for abuse. I certainly hope you don’t work for an organisation like Council for Civil Liberties. Indeed, that submission from the CCL is an insulting disgrace to intellectual honesty.

RE:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5656#78809 How can established facts from doctor-reviewed medical sources be “hysterical”?

Daniel asserts: “.. clearly you are an ignoramus. “ Why? because you’ve failed to address my concerns? Because you’re compensating for your own failure to present sensible evidence-based responses even though you attack others for not doing so? Is it to hide your failure to adhere to advice of experts re: caution with statistics/evidence?

The law in regards to illicit drugs has proven its legitimacy. Society has approved it’s legitimacy at the elections. Just because you’re a mere BA doesn’t mean you’ve the right to override their choices. My argument is for informed decisions- yours has been - do as the academics say or you’re an idiot. Your contempt for the lay person is pathological.

You say that 60% -80% (you skewed figures again - illicit drug users consist of around 5%) are “ignoring the current laws a massive ice epidemic, gross violations of civil liberties (for drug users and abstainers alike), corruption on an unrivalled scale”. Why then legitimise such damaging behaviour without proof that you won’t make it worse for all society? And where’s your conclusive proof prohibition hasn’t curtailed the problem? Inconclusive stats from Nederland.

Law enforcers have gone soft on drugs lately and that’s why this epidemic is happening - reduce the sentences for users fair enough -but go hard –shut the rave venues down if they can’t clean up their act.

Rave dance venues hold regular events where ecstasy is available. This regular supply can lead to addiction unlike the old days when a regular score was unlikely.

The “crazy death squad idea” -as you dishonestly put it - was to show the absurdity of your consequentialist logic without a moral basis.

Daniel says: “Australia didn't have a drug problem before prohibition”. There weren’t as many illicit drugs then. Thank God they did prohibit or we’d be in a bigger mess now going on the alcoholic cigarette problems. Society was much different then too. Given Daniel06’s many baseless assumptions and compensations in this discussion I question how you earned a BA.

Ah the old chestnut of personal name slagging - the last bastion of a non-intellectual losing an arguement baddly.

Do you realise how sad you look slagging me of for having a 'mere BA' and implying that even a monkey could get one, and yet you yourself don't even have one? That makes you less intelligent than a... well I won't stoop to your level.

If they are such an easily achievable Degree go get one yourself Ronnie boy.

You would have loved the Nimbin rally yesterday - 15,000 people pushing for law reform. It was a fantastic event. Change is in the air and your looney laws are on the way out sooner or later.

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/03/prohibition-not-effective.html

Great article printed in the Age