scotus69

5 ms·

1.
by scotus69 16y ago
Perhaps your references need updating. The current WHO statement is here: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.ht... Furthermore, the reference you cite is : "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 5 March 1995 (unpublished Brie
2.
by scotus69 16y ago
Agreed. And the "acceptability" of such substances varies from society to society (case-in-point: khat). But that still does not take away the societal distress and human cost their abuse causes.
3.
by scotus69 16y ago
No, liberty per se, is not immoral. You or any human being on this planet is free to consume, enjoy or even abuse any substance you like. However, when the cost of your consumption or addiction becomes a burden on almost every other fellow
4.
by scotus69 16y ago
Sure. Just because the government is saying something, even truth, does not automatically make it false. Replacing cocaine with not only "caffeine", but also "theophylline" and "sildenafil citrate" also works. Only, neither of those has the
5.
by scotus69 16y ago
OK. Enhancement by "addictive" means. Note, it is the "addiction" that provides an extra level of "danger" to abuse. Why even get into motives? Just because my motive is to fly by myself does not mean I won't die if I skydive without a para
6.
by scotus69 16y ago
Just because a "drug" is socially acceptable does not make it any less dangerous, case in point: the tobacco industry in the seventies. And even alcohol: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/ No, I am not for deliberate poiso
7.
by scotus69 16y ago
Why? Let them have cake... and die. Let me explain what I mean. The "idea" may be reprehensible from a humanistic point of view and perhaps even from the drug pusher's point of view that it is bad business to kill your customers (too) quick