You're not weird, unfortunately, just ignorant, but that can be corrected. As I said above, your 'common sense' does not match real world studies.
Consider what you would do as an addict to an expensive and illegal drug. How do you fund that habit? You have access to drugs easily through an underground criminal network - you can steal, and that will work for a while, or you can SELL the drug to new users. You won't get caught for a few years if ever, in that time, how many NEW ADDICTS will you CREATE? Prohibition causes addicts to create new addicts, spreading like a virus.
Now consider the alternative, you are still an addict, but you have cheap and legal access to the same drug, but you go to a clinic to get it. There is no drive to create new addicts. People see you have a medical problem and don't want to be a part of that. FEWER NEW ADDICTS are created.
Human nature (and economics) is more complicated than cheap and available therefore I will risk becoming an addict, 'expensive' and illicit is so much sexier.
No, the swiss are interested in the overall costs to society caused by addiction. They are also interested in REDUCING the rate of addiction. The more liberal approach REDUCES the rate of NEW ADDICTS.
Because, there aren't dealers (i.e, addicts funding their habit) ENCOURAGING people to become NEW USERS.
Your assumptions are flawed.
AVAILABILTY != MORE ADDICTS. In fact it is prohibition that creates more addicts, you just don't understand the underlying mechanisms that make that true.
No, your oxycodone is a bad example. Its not freely available to addicts like heroin is in the swiss example, it is overly controlled, or otherwise you would have exactly the same problem with swiss heroin as you are describing with US oxycodone, but they don't.
Oxycodone is NOT as addictive as heroin, so therefore it is the difference in the SYSTEM that creates the problem, not the DRUG itself.
Re-evaluate your assumptions.
Also, I agree, the more liberal systems have the benefit of REDUCING drug use, but PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK.
The one thing that is orders of magnitude worse than being addicted to a substance is being addicted to a prohibited substance.
Secondly, despite your 'common sense' feeling that prohibition minimises the creation of new addicts, it is entirely possible that the tougher the prohibition the greater number of addicts. Netherlands has a lower usage of cannabis per capita despite its open availability. The Swiss heroin experiments has shown a decrease in the number of new heroin users after making it freely available to addicts. Portugal has a lower incidence of all drug use since decriminalising all drugs, etc...
While all assignments in Erlang are constants (or single assignment), the standard pattern is a to have a processing loop that receives and processes messages. This processing loop usually has a single state variable (such as the cache entries in your example), and to alter the state, a new variable is created from the message and the old state, and the loop called (tail recursion stops the stack from growing) with the new state. This means that in practical terms, there is no problem implementing say an O(1) cache in Erlang.
There is also a mutable, pre process, key/value store (but its use is frowned upon), and also ets (erlang term storage) and dets (disk ets), which are key/value store type systems.
but as long as you respect free will, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that someone somewhere will be victimized by their own ignorance
(yes, i said abuse, not use, as no one NEEDS to use internet based forums on a regular basis unless they are mentally unfit)
addictive personality -> online forums
internet forums are nothing more than digital crack
now mod me into oblivion done
but as long as you respect free will, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that someone somewhere will be victimized by their own ignorance
Idiot, I'm not modbombing you, I just 0 rate you and not ALWAYS either (never where I would have given another poster a 3 for the same comment). Modbombing would be going to your profile and zeroing everything. I just read everyone's comments and mod them appropriately. I read almost every comment there and rate probably near half of them.
I used to think you were redeemable, but you built a WALL, remember that? You said yourself that you are not redeemable, that nothing will ever change your mind on this topic.
How many times can you tell me to die and expect respect? The disrespect aspect was entirely initiated by you, I wonder how you can even expect my slightest respect after some of the things you have said.
You also repeat flawed arguments over and over. For example, I point out the flawed 120mph analogy a hundred times to you and you go on using it, so I assume you don't listen, don't care and are primarily interested in trolling. Its a perfect troll analogy in that it seems right on first examination, but is ultimately wrong.
Also, if you weren't so damn prolific in your postings you probably would never have come to my attention at all - you can't post half the comments in every story and consider your respondent's sycophants for noticing you, but then again, I consider that too yet another one of your clever little trolls.
The truth is, in general, I don't think you are worthy of interaction, but on some topics it is worth replying to your trolls just so that others don't fall for your subtly (deliberately) flawed logic.
your post is groundless speculation that adds little value to a frank discussion of the pros and cons of this vaccine. I said in another comment that as long as it is the voluntary choice of adults, I think this vaccine is great.
And until that happens And by then it will be too late to discuss.
You didn't check that link out at all did you? The second link in the query you gave me is a book arguing that drug addiction is NOT slavery. Boring old drivel is anything you don't agree with I guess.
what exactly compels you to 0 rate all of my comments? I consider you a troll and I saw your frustration with jxg over this, but mostly because you troll.
A person cannot be a slave to themselves. A person cannot be a slave to something with no WILL. A person can only be a slave to something with a will, ie another person.
Drugs have no will, addicts are slaves merely to their own impulses, which is actually the definition of freedom retard.
Freedom to pursue your OWN WILL. If anything, you want people to be slaves TO YOUR WILL.
A drug has no will, so the use of a drug by an addict is still the addict's own will.
A slave is not free to make any choice, there is no freedom after the lashings. A drug addict can have their freedom, it is hard, the drug may even 'lash' them for breaking free but they do not have to remain addicted for ever. Therefore, they are not a SLAVE.
I highly doubt westernized society would be quick to start to inflict any form of medical procedure on someone who does not wish it As cocaine is illegal, it is quite likely that courts will soon force this on people that are caught with it against their will.
But now that cocaine abuse can be fixed with this, why should it remain illegal?
#1 A drug addict is a total slave, and can never free themselves (even with help). #2 A drug addict is not a total slave, and still has a choice to free themselves.
If you chose #1, then all addicts are forever and completely lost and according to you may be justly executed. If you chose #2, then you invalidate your argument.
Just because something is hard to do does not mean there is no freedom of choice.
A drug addict is still free to make the choice, its just a damn hard choice. If they weren't free to make a choice, nothing short of killing them could bring about your desired goals. If you believe an addict can ever be free, then you admit they have a choice.
A libertarian would say that a person who cannot provide housing or food for themselves should go cold and starving, but we are liberals, not libertarians and believe in positive as well as negative rights. Still, positive rights do not create a duty... they are effectively government provided charities, and you cannot force a free man to go against his will because you believe it will mean he may one day require your charity. Otherwise, your positive rights become communism, and we may as well force people to work the jobs we think they are best suited for, lest they fall on our warm hearted charity.
For one, when you drive, you take on a duty of care and responsibility to other drivers.
The default state of an adult human is having no duties and no responsibilities. If you take on duties and responsibilities through your life, then you must live up to them, and failing to live up to them may be punished. Driving is a duty, you must be sober and obey the rules of the road.
As an adult, you also must not harm others, because you take away their freedom. Smoking in a restaurant harms someone else's right not to breath in your smoke. When you harm others, you may also be punished.
You do not have a duty to provide food or housing or other such niceties for yourself, and society may provide you with these if you need them, but such POSITIVE rights (as opposed to the negative rights, like free speech, which take nothing from others) still do not create a DUTY on the recipient. The providers of the POSITIVE rights may demand certain conditions be met in order to receive those rights (such as seeking work or not being an alcoholic), but they cannot be apriori demanded from you.
Example, Pot makes you a lazy couch potato who won't be bothered working, therefore it is right that it be illegal. Just like pot, many coke and heroin users are far more successful than you.
So, being addicted or, in general, being a total fuckup failure of a loser, takes NOTHING away from anyone, even when society decides it will help you.
I say its a good thing if someone wants it to overcome an addiction that they have decided to leave behind and receive counseling so they don't hit other drugs. Its definitely a bad thing if someone is forced to take it against their will.
Its all about freedom of choice. If its another choice available to adults, then its great... If its not a choice, forced on either adults (or worse) children, its evil.
How would you feel if you were forced to take a vaccine for your drugs of choice?
Slashdot Mirror
No, your argument is flawed.
Prohibition means addicts create MORE addicts.
Harm reduction removes the incentive for dealers to create more addicts. Therefore LESS ADDICTION.
Not only are you making existing addicts suffer more than necessary, YOU ARE CREATING MORE ADDICTS.
You're not weird, unfortunately, just ignorant, but that can be corrected. As I said above, your 'common sense' does not match real world studies.
Consider what you would do as an addict to an expensive and illegal drug. How do you fund that habit? You have access to drugs easily through an underground criminal network - you can steal, and that will work for a while, or you can SELL the drug to new users. You won't get caught for a few years if ever, in that time, how many NEW ADDICTS will you CREATE? Prohibition causes addicts to create new addicts, spreading like a virus.
Now consider the alternative, you are still an addict, but you have cheap and legal access to the same drug, but you go to a clinic to get it. There is no drive to create new addicts. People see you have a medical problem and don't want to be a part of that. FEWER NEW ADDICTS are created.
Human nature (and economics) is more complicated than cheap and available therefore I will risk becoming an addict, 'expensive' and illicit is so much sexier.
No, the swiss are interested in the overall costs to society caused by addiction. They are also interested in REDUCING the rate of addiction. The more liberal approach REDUCES the rate of NEW ADDICTS.
Because, there aren't dealers (i.e, addicts funding their habit) ENCOURAGING people to become NEW USERS.
Your assumptions are flawed.
AVAILABILTY != MORE ADDICTS. In fact it is prohibition that creates more addicts, you just don't understand the underlying mechanisms that make that true.
No, your oxycodone is a bad example. Its not freely available to addicts like heroin is in the swiss example, it is overly controlled, or otherwise you would have exactly the same problem with swiss heroin as you are describing with US oxycodone, but they don't.
Oxycodone is NOT as addictive as heroin, so therefore it is the difference in the SYSTEM that creates the problem, not the DRUG itself.
Re-evaluate your assumptions.
Also, I agree, the more liberal systems have the benefit of REDUCING drug use, but PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK.
The one thing that is orders of magnitude worse than being addicted to a substance is being addicted to a prohibited substance.
Secondly, despite your 'common sense' feeling that prohibition minimises the creation of new addicts, it is entirely possible that the tougher the prohibition the greater number of addicts. Netherlands has a lower usage of cannabis per capita despite its open availability. The Swiss heroin experiments has shown a decrease in the number of new heroin users after making it freely available to addicts. Portugal has a lower incidence of all drug use since decriminalising all drugs, etc...
If only there was a way to remove the cartels' funding.
While all assignments in Erlang are constants (or single assignment), the standard pattern is a to have a processing loop that receives and processes messages. This processing loop usually has a single state variable (such as the cache entries in your example), and to alter the state, a new variable is created from the message and the old state, and the loop called (tail recursion stops the stack from growing) with the new state. This means that in practical terms, there is no problem implementing say an O(1) cache in Erlang.
There is also a mutable, pre process, key/value store (but its use is frowned upon), and also ets (erlang term storage) and dets (disk ets), which are key/value store type systems.
people were only seeing a shadow of reality and it was up to politicians to declare war on shadows.
but as long as you respect free will, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that someone somewhere will be victimized by their own ignorance
addictive personality -> substance abuse
(yes, i said abuse, not use, as no one NEEDS to use internet based forums on a regular basis unless they are mentally unfit)
addictive personality -> online forums
internet forums are nothing more than digital crack
now mod me into oblivion
done
but as long as you respect free will, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that someone somewhere will be victimized by their own ignorance
switzerland is pretty liberal on drug policy
What gives you that impression?
an idiot 14yo troll.
Idiot, I'm not modbombing you, I just 0 rate you and not ALWAYS either (never where I would have given another poster a 3 for the same comment). Modbombing would be going to your profile and zeroing everything. I just read everyone's comments and mod them appropriately. I read almost every comment there and rate probably near half of them.
I used to think you were redeemable, but you built a WALL, remember that? You said yourself that you are not redeemable, that nothing will ever change your mind on this topic.
How many times can you tell me to die and expect respect? The disrespect aspect was entirely initiated by you, I wonder how you can even expect my slightest respect after some of the things you have said.
You also repeat flawed arguments over and over. For example, I point out the flawed 120mph analogy a hundred times to you and you go on using it, so I assume you don't listen, don't care and are primarily interested in trolling. Its a perfect troll analogy in that it seems right on first examination, but is ultimately wrong.
Also, if you weren't so damn prolific in your postings you probably would never have come to my attention at all - you can't post half the comments in every story and consider your respondent's sycophants for noticing you, but then again, I consider that too yet another one of your clever little trolls.
The truth is, in general, I don't think you are worthy of interaction, but on some topics it is worth replying to your trolls just so that others don't fall for your subtly (deliberately) flawed logic.
your post is groundless speculation that adds little value to a frank discussion of the pros and cons of this vaccine.
I said in another comment that as long as it is the voluntary choice of adults, I think this vaccine is great.
And until that happens
And by then it will be too late to discuss.
You didn't check that link out at all did you? The second link in the query you gave me is a book arguing that drug addiction is NOT slavery. Boring old drivel is anything you don't agree with I guess.
what exactly compels you to 0 rate all of my comments?
I consider you a troll and I saw your frustration with jxg over this, but mostly because you troll.
addiction is a state of perfect rational choice, no compulsion or coercion about it
Who compels or coerces the drug addict?
The drug may alter a person's will, but it forever remains their will...
The only compulsion and coercion here is the state trying to stop that person following their will.
hey, btw, isn't a shame you can't 0 rate my comments here?
I see you get your fair share of troll ratings here on your own, you don't need my help.
ps: The second link from that query: http://books.google.com/books?id=_koKWNoudJwC&dq=addiction+slavery
A person cannot be a slave to themselves. A person cannot be a slave to something with no WILL. A person can only be a slave to something with a will, ie another person.
Drugs have no will, addicts are slaves merely to their own impulses, which is actually the definition of freedom retard.
Freedom to pursue your OWN WILL. If anything, you want people to be slaves TO YOUR WILL.
Their will is subject to the will of their owner.
A drug has no will, so the use of a drug by an addict is still the addict's own will.
A slave is not free to make any choice, there is no freedom after the lashings. A drug addict can have their freedom, it is hard, the drug may even 'lash' them for breaking free but they do not have to remain addicted for ever. Therefore, they are not a SLAVE.
Your title says permanently a slave, but your comment admits they have do actually have a choice. A HARD CHOICE, but A CHOICE NONETHELESS.
So you are being intellectually dishonest.
Good day.
I highly doubt westernized society would be quick to start to inflict any form of medical procedure on someone who does not wish it
As cocaine is illegal, it is quite likely that courts will soon force this on people that are caught with it against their will.
But now that cocaine abuse can be fixed with this, why should it remain illegal?
#1 A drug addict is a total slave, and can never free themselves (even with help).
#2 A drug addict is not a total slave, and still has a choice to free themselves.
If you chose #1, then all addicts are forever and completely lost and according to you may be justly executed. If you chose #2, then you invalidate your argument.
Just because something is hard to do does not mean there is no freedom of choice.
So, which is it?
A drug addict is still free to make the choice, its just a damn hard choice. If they weren't free to make a choice, nothing short of killing them could bring about your desired goals. If you believe an addict can ever be free, then you admit they have a choice.
A libertarian would say that a person who cannot provide housing or food for themselves should go cold and starving, but we are liberals, not libertarians and believe in positive as well as negative rights. Still, positive rights do not create a duty... they are effectively government provided charities, and you cannot force a free man to go against his will because you believe it will mean he may one day require your charity. Otherwise, your positive rights become communism, and we may as well force people to work the jobs we think they are best suited for, lest they fall on our warm hearted charity.
For one, when you drive, you take on a duty of care and responsibility to other drivers.
The default state of an adult human is having no duties and no responsibilities. If you take on duties and responsibilities through your life, then you must live up to them, and failing to live up to them may be punished. Driving is a duty, you must be sober and obey the rules of the road.
As an adult, you also must not harm others, because you take away their freedom. Smoking in a restaurant harms someone else's right not to breath in your smoke. When you harm others, you may also be punished.
You do not have a duty to provide food or housing or other such niceties for yourself, and society may provide you with these if you need them, but such POSITIVE rights (as opposed to the negative rights, like free speech, which take nothing from others) still do not create a DUTY on the recipient. The providers of the POSITIVE rights may demand certain conditions be met in order to receive those rights (such as seeking work or not being an alcoholic), but they cannot be apriori demanded from you.
Example, Pot makes you a lazy couch potato who won't be bothered working, therefore it is right that it be illegal. Just like pot, many coke and heroin users are far more successful than you.
So, being addicted or, in general, being a total fuckup failure of a loser, takes NOTHING away from anyone, even when society decides it will help you.
I say its a good thing if someone wants it to overcome an addiction that they have decided to leave behind and receive counseling so they don't hit other drugs. Its definitely a bad thing if someone is forced to take it against their will.
Its all about freedom of choice. If its another choice available to adults, then its great... If its not a choice, forced on either adults (or worse) children, its evil.
How would you feel if you were forced to take a vaccine for your drugs of choice?
the illegality keeps it hard to find, and the harder it is to find the fewer people experimenting with it.
Could you please explain why that logic didn't work with alcohol prohibition?
Do you think this logic is true for marijuana?
Is there something special about the 'hard' drugs that means that logic works with them but not others?
The above logic is the obvious result but does not consider the real life unintended consequences that bring about the opposite of what you aim for.