if everyone else is trying to sleep on the bus/ train and you are loudly using your cell phone about an obviously nonurgent matter (your sister's crazy marriage, your kid's report card, your dog's diet, etc.) then you deserve to be jammed, with my full support, and with the support of everyone else trying to get some shuteye
the economic argument seems to be the only one that will get people to change their ways on a personal and national policy level in terms of fossil fuel use and the environmental and geopolitical damage it does
i cheer for $8/ gallon gas. let's hit $10/ gallon, please. let's start designing our cities more intelligently, use more mass transit, breathe cleaner air, and care less about the middle east
people gamble with their health, people make stupid decisions. this includes you. this includes myself
but what doesn't happen is that the individual is the only one who pays for their bad gambles, we pay for it, society, in direct financial ways, and in more disperse ways
we're not going to change human nature, but if we become aware of snake oil salesmen, or ponzi schemes, we shut it down
not because we want to tell people what to do and deny them their god given freedom to shoot themselves in the foot, but because we don't want to pay for their fuck ups
ok i'm sorry, you're right. 65% is larger than 70%. 4% is larger than 8%. etc.
construct whatever rationalizations you need to convince yourself of your position, however harmful to yourself or your society: cheaper and easier availability = less use. more use = less addicts. and the moon is made of cheese
rationalizing harmful beliefs: drug addicts are good at the same mental skillset, they need it to maintain the denial of their addiction. perhaps this is the source of your passion here. as for myself, have seen a loved one in the grip of addiction, the full arc of what that addiction meant to their life. and you search for a way out, for some solution to the problem, and every thought eventually goes back to the beginning: prevent the creation of the addict in the first place. this is more important than trying to improve the lives of existing addicts, they are already in hell no matter what you do
i am sorry, but this conversation is over. i don't think either of us are changing their opinion. i just would like you to understand the reality of addiction someday, what it actually does to human lives, the full weight of the cruelty of addiction. and i want you to think about policies with that in mind, and not from some idealized world or train of thought that exists in full suspension of disbelief about what human nature is really like when mixed with easily available highly addictive substances. good luck to your maturation of thought on the subject
yes, again, the simple bifurcation between quality of the lives of drug addicts, and the increase of use of drugs and therefore addicts. we have been over this a number of times. your points about the increase in the quality of life of the addict is wonderful, and i applaud it. and we have forgotten the more important issue
is it that you wish me to believe that easier access and cheaper prices leads to less users?
is it that you wish me to believe that more users means less addicts?
this is where you tell me its ok that people who would otherwise not use and not become addicts is ok, because the life of an addict is now easier. easier in terms of getting the product they need. as if more people with the need for the product in the first place is some sort of proof of better quality of life! incredible
we have different goals. and your goal, better quality of life for addicts, is the lesser goal
we need less drug use and addict creation in the first place
"Harm reduction removes the incentive for dealers to create more addicts"
that's a mouthful. harm reduction is about alleviating the effects of addiction on the addict. nice subject, completely out of context in that sentence
but again, your sentence gets us to the central point of conflict between you and i: you are interested in bettering the lives of existing addicts. a noble cause. but i am interested in preventing the creation of new addicts. the nobler cause
so you must find a way to alleviate the addict's hell without increasing the supply and cheapness of the drug, leading to more addicts
and please stop spouting this hilarious nonsense that easier supply and cheaper supply means less addicts. this is a very funny joke you are telling
fire water: subjugating native americans by creating dependency by making alcohol cheap and easy. weakening the society to be easily defeated
opium wars: flooding the chinese empire with cheap easy heroin, turning chinese lives into zombified states of being with only one pointless goal, weakening the society to be easily defeated
in both cases, addict population booms when supply is cheap and easy. what is it about the simple economics of supply and demand that you do not understand? what is it about the biochemistry of addiction that you don't understand?
denying a nonaddict an addictive substance does nothing but save them. you do this with artificial scarcity. if it is too hard and expensive to get heroin or cocaine or meth in the first place, it is never reached for in the first place. of course, once an addict, mountains will be moved to get the precious substance, even if it means the destruction of your entire life
denying an addict their addictive substances causes them great pain. but this is not the pain of a free man denied his natural liberty. this is the pain of a zombie denied an artificially maintained biochemical feedback loop
we've already been over this: yes, prohibition makes the lives of existing addicts a living hell. but they are already a lost cause
i am interested in preventing the creation of new addicts. and my weapon is artificial scarcity by government policy
which many view as some sort of horrible affront to personal liberty. which i find hilarious, considering what drug addiction itself does to personal liberty
drug addiction is slow motion suicide. blotting out a day here and there, because of the simple pain of existence. which we all have, the simple pain of existence, and is the only real gateway to drug use, should drugs be readily available and easy and cheap to reach
what we need, is less people on this planet. and unfortunately, this will come via grief rather than sensible planning. it's not that we don't see the tragedy coming, it is that we are helpless to convince anyone to change their short-sighted thinking to prevent the inevitable. you don't need to grow crops in the desert unless there are too many people in the desert already. so don't worry about the dangers here, mother nature has it all figured out. mankind has created a natural imbalance of population that will be corrected in the natural way. painfully and tragically. despite the better wisdom of folks such as yourself. because no one will listen to you, because no one wants to sacrifice the minor short term gains for the sake of some nebulous long term worry. that really isn't so nebulous, as we approach 8 billion people
mankind is going to pursue this technology, no matter what you think or do. you don't stop mankind's technological progress. the same technology that can make better pipes for irrigation can be used to make better guns for killing
so what you do is you don't stand against GMO, because it can make wheat grow in the desert or put vitamin a in crops where the local diet is deficient in that
what you do is stand against the BAD THINGS that the new technology can do: create ecosystem destroying organisms or crops that depend upon pesticides
don't stand against the technology. a fool's errand. because the technology can do good, and will get used no matter what you think. stand against the bad things a new technology can do. a better more fruitful use of your time
the swiss are interested in the quality of life of current addicts. i am interested in the prevention of the creation of addicts. and economics is the whole point: cheaper easier supply = more addicts. i am certain that addicts in switzerland have a better quality of life than anywhere else. i am glad switzerland has the resources and the compassion to be so concerned about the lives of their addicts. but the whole point is to prevent the creation of addicts, and easier and cheaper supply just creates more addicts. and once an addict, the damage is done: your personal freedom your entire life is now hobbled by an expensive (prohibition or not) pointless habit that interferes with work and relationships
where drugs are easier to use, drugs get used. its all about willpower, and if the drug is in easy reach, on a national or a personal level, the drugs get used. we all have moments of weakness. so prohibition, on a personal or national level, putting the drugs out of more difficult reach with artificial scarcity, is the best policy. not for the sake of existing addicts, but for the CREATION of future addicts
how do you destroy the native americans? give them fire water
how do you destroy the chinese empire? give them opium
availability = more addicts. every dealer knows this. that's why the first hit is free
we all have psychological pain in our lives and moments of weakness. at that point, we will reach for drugs if they are available. so don't make them available, on a personal or national level
for existing addicts, this policy is hell. to prevent creating addicts, this policy is the best we can do. of course addicts will always be created. it's simply a maintenance function of civilization to minimize their creation. the war on drugs will never end, and began before homo sapiens even existed: filling our lives with empty deadening of pain versus the simple pain of existence, on a personal and national level, is a basic struggle of existence itself
"Someone obtaining it legally and cheaply has no pressure to introduce more people to the drug"
ah the desperate stink of fanciful rationalization
the drug, all by itself, is all that is needed to create an addict
so you make it cheaper and easier to get, and you create more addicts
that's it, that's it, the whole story: lower barrier of entry = more addicts
that's what addiction is, that's what it means. we all have psychological pain in our lives. how do we deal with it. we all have that moment of despondency daily, or weekly. if the drug is in reach, the drug gets reached for, and eventually, it gets reached for every waking moment. because that's what addiction to substances like meth, heroin, cocaine means. all you can do is put the drug out of reach as best you can, on a personal or societal level
if you don't understand that, you don't understand addiction
economics 101: artificial scarcity, aka prohibition, is the only tool we have against the most addictive substances (cocaine, heroin, meth). just look at oxydone and the criminality of the aftermarket: a perfectly legal controlled substance, and yet, again, addiction finds a way. it always finds a way. all you can do is make the way as hard as possible. the addicts are a lost cause, it is all they think about, they will find a way. it is the lives you save that you prvented from ever reaching for the drug that you save
it is simply a maintenance function of civilization, of maintaining individual liberty away from the greatest destroyer of individual liberty the world has ever known: drugs, not government policy, to maintain that artificial scarcity
the war on drugs will never end. on a society level. on an individual level. because when you relax the controls, as a society or as an individual, the drug simply takes over society or your life. deadening the pain of existence with a false vampire, an exensive parasite that gives nothing to your life or your society
you don't understand addiction, and what it does to willpower, what the cost is in human life. the money spent on preventing people from falling into this shadow existence is money well spent. i have seen what addiction does to lives. i do not need silly ignorant fanboys lecturing me about government policy. the drugs themselves are the enemy
know what real adidction does to human life, regardless of government policy, or know nothing
right now, there are some guys, with cash in their pocket, taking it to the local bar, rather than put food on their children's plate or education in their minds
and for what? to deaden a few hours of existence
multiply this by billions
multiply this by every year homo sapiens has existed
civilization understands its enemies. a useless expensive (prohibition or not) parasitical habit that has people deaden the simple psychological pain of life we all experience with substances is civilization's enemy #1. and forget society: on individual level, there has been no greater destruction of personal freedom: the bars in the mind of addiction are stronger and more binding than the most sadistic prison the most fascist authoritarian could ever dream up
know the costs of addiction in terms of individual lives and in terms of societies, or know nothing, whatever the government policy
and you have fake prescriptions and you have resale and you have people storming pharmacies and killing people, etc.: the DRUG itself is the problem, not the policy, because of what the substance all by itself does to human lives
you seem to have this naive belief that legalizing these substances solves the problem. no, it just lowers the barrier of entry for creating addicts, and creates more addicts. not that i am not for legalizing cannabis: it's barely addictive. even lsd should be legal: it doesn't addict. but heroin? cocaine? meth? no, never legal
because i understand what addiction does to people's lives
if you look at drug use, and you think removing prohibition (even in the countries you mentioned there is still government CONTROL MECHANISMS, aka "prohibition") solves the drug problem, you are utterly clueless on the subject. even in those countries the policies oyu mention have the primary goal OF COMBATTING DRUG USE. counterintuitive policies, but the goal is the sam eas mine, not yours: get people OFF drugs
but addiction, all by itself, the combination of the individual and the substance, completely outside of any government policy you could ever dream up, is the point of freedom destruction. and lowering the barrier of entry is all that is needed to destroy more human lives. everyone has psychological pain in their life. how do you cope with it? if it is the normal psychological pain of youth, yo grow up. but if you have drugs in ready reach, you destroy your life, this drug becomes your primary coping mechanism. congratulations, you've just permanently hobbled someone's freedom for their entire life, for a vampire, a useless EXPENSIVE (prohibition or not) parasitical habit. that's what is going on here
i suppose you proponent of individual freedom. so am i. unlike you, i recognize the real destroyer of freedom in this conversation, and it isn't government policy
GMO can do all sorts of good and evil things. good things like grow in the desert or increase vitamin A yield. bad things like require pesticide use or unintentionally mess with ecosystems
but what they can't do is poison you or give you cooties. it's just technology. technology like metalworking: it can used to make better harvesters, or better guns. or chemical engineering: mass produce aspirin, or mass produce phosgene
standing against the technology doesn't mean you stand just against the bad the technology does, it also means you stand against the good it does
so stop standing against technological progress. just stand against the bad things people can do with technological progress. and celebrate the good things they can do with technological progress
your kind of thinking currently, it speaks of ignorance of science and fear of science. it doesn't mean anything except that you are like those fools who don't vaccinate their children for fear of autism or the tribesmen who think a camera picture takes a piece of your soul: you don't understand it, so you fear it. you don't understand DNA, so your position is simply the position of fear and ignorance
i hope you understand that addiction is the most potent destroyer of freedom that mankind has ever known
you don't call policies that limit people's access to substances that destroy personal freedom, destroyers of freedom
but it a philosophical question: if someone wishes to commit suicide, and you forcibly stop them, are you denying them their freedom?
if we assume death=no freedom, then stopping them from removing their own freedom is an act that extends freedom
in the same way, i view drug policy
addiction=death of freedom, more than any government policy could ever achieve (unless of course, some hypothetical government forcibly addicted people to drugs. that would be the greatest fascist government ever possible)
Slashdot Mirror
MMMyyyyyyyyy
that's just a guess
but the level these guys are working at here, something well above script kiddie and slightly below elder neckbeard, it seems entirely plausible to me
if everyone else is trying to sleep on the bus/ train and you are loudly using your cell phone about an obviously nonurgent matter (your sister's crazy marriage, your kid's report card, your dog's diet, etc.) then you deserve to be jammed, with my full support, and with the support of everyone else trying to get some shuteye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhol_worm
that which will work crossplatform, and bring down the internet in 15 minutes
it's a frightening and awesome idea to behold
"Because it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, a business model based on willful ignorance and scamming people."
which happens to be a business model that works, unfortunately
the economic argument seems to be the only one that will get people to change their ways on a personal and national policy level in terms of fossil fuel use and the environmental and geopolitical damage it does
i cheer for $8/ gallon gas. let's hit $10/ gallon, please. let's start designing our cities more intelligently, use more mass transit, breathe cleaner air, and care less about the middle east
people gamble with their health, people make stupid decisions. this includes you. this includes myself
but what doesn't happen is that the individual is the only one who pays for their bad gambles, we pay for it, society, in direct financial ways, and in more disperse ways
we're not going to change human nature, but if we become aware of snake oil salesmen, or ponzi schemes, we shut it down
not because we want to tell people what to do and deny them their god given freedom to shoot themselves in the foot, but because we don't want to pay for their fuck ups
wait... are you that asshole from k5 like 8 years ago? LOL
ok i'm sorry, you're right. 65% is larger than 70%. 4% is larger than 8%. etc.
construct whatever rationalizations you need to convince yourself of your position, however harmful to yourself or your society: cheaper and easier availability = less use. more use = less addicts. and the moon is made of cheese
rationalizing harmful beliefs: drug addicts are good at the same mental skillset, they need it to maintain the denial of their addiction. perhaps this is the source of your passion here. as for myself, have seen a loved one in the grip of addiction, the full arc of what that addiction meant to their life. and you search for a way out, for some solution to the problem, and every thought eventually goes back to the beginning: prevent the creation of the addict in the first place. this is more important than trying to improve the lives of existing addicts, they are already in hell no matter what you do
i am sorry, but this conversation is over. i don't think either of us are changing their opinion. i just would like you to understand the reality of addiction someday, what it actually does to human lives, the full weight of the cruelty of addiction. and i want you to think about policies with that in mind, and not from some idealized world or train of thought that exists in full suspension of disbelief about what human nature is really like when mixed with easily available highly addictive substances. good luck to your maturation of thought on the subject
page 18
zzz
yes, again, the simple bifurcation between quality of the lives of drug addicts, and the increase of use of drugs and therefore addicts. we have been over this a number of times. your points about the increase in the quality of life of the addict is wonderful, and i applaud it. and we have forgotten the more important issue
is it that you wish me to believe that easier access and cheaper prices leads to less users?
is it that you wish me to believe that more users means less addicts?
at what point do i laugh?
you can sell crazy all you want, but no one's buying
increased availability and lower price means more use. more use means more addicts
page 18
http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf
this is where you tell me its ok that people who would otherwise not use and not become addicts is ok, because the life of an addict is now easier. easier in terms of getting the product they need. as if more people with the need for the product in the first place is some sort of proof of better quality of life! incredible
we have different goals. and your goal, better quality of life for addicts, is the lesser goal
we need less drug use and addict creation in the first place
ok. so we don't prohibit drugs
so prices and availability naturally come down
right?
then what happens. here comes wishful thinking
"Harm reduction removes the incentive for dealers to create more addicts"
that's a mouthful. harm reduction is about alleviating the effects of addiction on the addict. nice subject, completely out of context in that sentence
but again, your sentence gets us to the central point of conflict between you and i: you are interested in bettering the lives of existing addicts. a noble cause. but i am interested in preventing the creation of new addicts. the nobler cause
so you must find a way to alleviate the addict's hell without increasing the supply and cheapness of the drug, leading to more addicts
and please stop spouting this hilarious nonsense that easier supply and cheaper supply means less addicts. this is a very funny joke you are telling
fire water: subjugating native americans by creating dependency by making alcohol cheap and easy. weakening the society to be easily defeated
opium wars: flooding the chinese empire with cheap easy heroin, turning chinese lives into zombified states of being with only one pointless goal, weakening the society to be easily defeated
in both cases, addict population booms when supply is cheap and easy. what is it about the simple economics of supply and demand that you do not understand? what is it about the biochemistry of addiction that you don't understand?
denying a nonaddict an addictive substance does nothing but save them. you do this with artificial scarcity. if it is too hard and expensive to get heroin or cocaine or meth in the first place, it is never reached for in the first place. of course, once an addict, mountains will be moved to get the precious substance, even if it means the destruction of your entire life
denying an addict their addictive substances causes them great pain. but this is not the pain of a free man denied his natural liberty. this is the pain of a zombie denied an artificially maintained biochemical feedback loop
we've already been over this: yes, prohibition makes the lives of existing addicts a living hell. but they are already a lost cause
i am interested in preventing the creation of new addicts. and my weapon is artificial scarcity by government policy
which many view as some sort of horrible affront to personal liberty. which i find hilarious, considering what drug addiction itself does to personal liberty
drug addiction is slow motion suicide. blotting out a day here and there, because of the simple pain of existence. which we all have, the simple pain of existence, and is the only real gateway to drug use, should drugs be readily available and easy and cheap to reach
what we need, is less people on this planet. and unfortunately, this will come via grief rather than sensible planning. it's not that we don't see the tragedy coming, it is that we are helpless to convince anyone to change their short-sighted thinking to prevent the inevitable. you don't need to grow crops in the desert unless there are too many people in the desert already. so don't worry about the dangers here, mother nature has it all figured out. mankind has created a natural imbalance of population that will be corrected in the natural way. painfully and tragically. despite the better wisdom of folks such as yourself. because no one will listen to you, because no one wants to sacrifice the minor short term gains for the sake of some nebulous long term worry. that really isn't so nebulous, as we approach 8 billion people
yes, i don't understand how making something more expensive and difficult to get makes people use it more
and i don't understand how making something cheaper and easier to get makes people use it less
sorry, i'm weird that way
mankind is going to pursue this technology, no matter what you think or do. you don't stop mankind's technological progress. the same technology that can make better pipes for irrigation can be used to make better guns for killing
so what you do is you don't stand against GMO, because it can make wheat grow in the desert or put vitamin a in crops where the local diet is deficient in that
what you do is stand against the BAD THINGS that the new technology can do: create ecosystem destroying organisms or crops that depend upon pesticides
don't stand against the technology. a fool's errand. because the technology can do good, and will get used no matter what you think. stand against the bad things a new technology can do. a better more fruitful use of your time
the swiss are interested in the quality of life of current addicts. i am interested in the prevention of the creation of addicts. and economics is the whole point: cheaper easier supply = more addicts. i am certain that addicts in switzerland have a better quality of life than anywhere else. i am glad switzerland has the resources and the compassion to be so concerned about the lives of their addicts. but the whole point is to prevent the creation of addicts, and easier and cheaper supply just creates more addicts. and once an addict, the damage is done: your personal freedom your entire life is now hobbled by an expensive (prohibition or not) pointless habit that interferes with work and relationships
where drugs are easier to use, drugs get used. its all about willpower, and if the drug is in easy reach, on a national or a personal level, the drugs get used. we all have moments of weakness. so prohibition, on a personal or national level, putting the drugs out of more difficult reach with artificial scarcity, is the best policy. not for the sake of existing addicts, but for the CREATION of future addicts
how do you destroy the native americans? give them fire water
how do you destroy the chinese empire? give them opium
availability = more addicts. every dealer knows this. that's why the first hit is free
we all have psychological pain in our lives and moments of weakness. at that point, we will reach for drugs if they are available. so don't make them available, on a personal or national level
for existing addicts, this policy is hell. to prevent creating addicts, this policy is the best we can do. of course addicts will always be created. it's simply a maintenance function of civilization to minimize their creation. the war on drugs will never end, and began before homo sapiens even existed: filling our lives with empty deadening of pain versus the simple pain of existence, on a personal and national level, is a basic struggle of existence itself
"Someone obtaining it legally and cheaply has no pressure to introduce more people to the drug"
ah the desperate stink of fanciful rationalization
the drug, all by itself, is all that is needed to create an addict
so you make it cheaper and easier to get, and you create more addicts
that's it, that's it, the whole story: lower barrier of entry = more addicts
that's what addiction is, that's what it means. we all have psychological pain in our lives. how do we deal with it. we all have that moment of despondency daily, or weekly. if the drug is in reach, the drug gets reached for, and eventually, it gets reached for every waking moment. because that's what addiction to substances like meth, heroin, cocaine means. all you can do is put the drug out of reach as best you can, on a personal or societal level
if you don't understand that, you don't understand addiction
economics 101: artificial scarcity, aka prohibition, is the only tool we have against the most addictive substances (cocaine, heroin, meth). just look at oxydone and the criminality of the aftermarket: a perfectly legal controlled substance, and yet, again, addiction finds a way. it always finds a way. all you can do is make the way as hard as possible. the addicts are a lost cause, it is all they think about, they will find a way. it is the lives you save that you prvented from ever reaching for the drug that you save
it is simply a maintenance function of civilization, of maintaining individual liberty away from the greatest destroyer of individual liberty the world has ever known: drugs, not government policy, to maintain that artificial scarcity
the war on drugs will never end. on a society level. on an individual level. because when you relax the controls, as a society or as an individual, the drug simply takes over society or your life. deadening the pain of existence with a false vampire, an exensive parasite that gives nothing to your life or your society
you don't understand addiction, and what it does to willpower, what the cost is in human life. the money spent on preventing people from falling into this shadow existence is money well spent. i have seen what addiction does to lives. i do not need silly ignorant fanboys lecturing me about government policy. the drugs themselves are the enemy
know what real adidction does to human life, regardless of government policy, or know nothing
right now, there are some guys, with cash in their pocket, taking it to the local bar, rather than put food on their children's plate or education in their minds
and for what? to deaden a few hours of existence
multiply this by billions
multiply this by every year homo sapiens has existed
civilization understands its enemies. a useless expensive (prohibition or not) parasitical habit that has people deaden the simple psychological pain of life we all experience with substances is civilization's enemy #1. and forget society: on individual level, there has been no greater destruction of personal freedom: the bars in the mind of addiction are stronger and more binding than the most sadistic prison the most fascist authoritarian could ever dream up
know the costs of addiction in terms of individual lives and in terms of societies, or know nothing, whatever the government policy
look at oxycodone
perfectly legal. controlled. just like you want
and you have fake prescriptions and you have resale and you have people storming pharmacies and killing people, etc.: the DRUG itself is the problem, not the policy, because of what the substance all by itself does to human lives
you seem to have this naive belief that legalizing these substances solves the problem. no, it just lowers the barrier of entry for creating addicts, and creates more addicts. not that i am not for legalizing cannabis: it's barely addictive. even lsd should be legal: it doesn't addict. but heroin? cocaine? meth? no, never legal
because i understand what addiction does to people's lives
if you look at drug use, and you think removing prohibition (even in the countries you mentioned there is still government CONTROL MECHANISMS, aka "prohibition") solves the drug problem, you are utterly clueless on the subject. even in those countries the policies oyu mention have the primary goal OF COMBATTING DRUG USE. counterintuitive policies, but the goal is the sam eas mine, not yours: get people OFF drugs
but addiction, all by itself, the combination of the individual and the substance, completely outside of any government policy you could ever dream up, is the point of freedom destruction. and lowering the barrier of entry is all that is needed to destroy more human lives. everyone has psychological pain in their life. how do you cope with it? if it is the normal psychological pain of youth, yo grow up. but if you have drugs in ready reach, you destroy your life, this drug becomes your primary coping mechanism. congratulations, you've just permanently hobbled someone's freedom for their entire life, for a vampire, a useless EXPENSIVE (prohibition or not) parasitical habit. that's what is going on here
i suppose you proponent of individual freedom. so am i. unlike you, i recognize the real destroyer of freedom in this conversation, and it isn't government policy
then go hide in your closet. GMO is going on every day, for billions of years. it's called mother nature
canadian?
it's just technology dude
GMO can do all sorts of good and evil things. good things like grow in the desert or increase vitamin A yield. bad things like require pesticide use or unintentionally mess with ecosystems
but what they can't do is poison you or give you cooties. it's just technology. technology like metalworking: it can used to make better harvesters, or better guns. or chemical engineering: mass produce aspirin, or mass produce phosgene
standing against the technology doesn't mean you stand just against the bad the technology does, it also means you stand against the good it does
so stop standing against technological progress. just stand against the bad things people can do with technological progress. and celebrate the good things they can do with technological progress
your kind of thinking currently, it speaks of ignorance of science and fear of science. it doesn't mean anything except that you are like those fools who don't vaccinate their children for fear of autism or the tribesmen who think a camera picture takes a piece of your soul: you don't understand it, so you fear it. you don't understand DNA, so your position is simply the position of fear and ignorance
you are speaking of freedom
i hope you understand that addiction is the most potent destroyer of freedom that mankind has ever known
you don't call policies that limit people's access to substances that destroy personal freedom, destroyers of freedom
but it a philosophical question: if someone wishes to commit suicide, and you forcibly stop them, are you denying them their freedom?
if we assume death=no freedom, then stopping them from removing their own freedom is an act that extends freedom
in the same way, i view drug policy
addiction=death of freedom, more than any government policy could ever achieve (unless of course, some hypothetical government forcibly addicted people to drugs. that would be the greatest fascist government ever possible)