OK Forum Monkeys....whachyoo think 'o dis??

[demonfork]

Again, you don't make sense. It can also be logical to pass a law banning something and then not enforce the law--e.g. most price controls set by municipal governments during the colonial period of the US. You'll continue digging your heels into a position which is silly, so have at it.

I cannot respond to the specific example you're bringing up because I know basically nothing about colonial U.S. price controls. But when it comes to a ban on something like drug consumption or distribution, the ban is essentially meaningless if it's not enforced. Most people do not value a law simply because it is on the books (hence the prevalence of speeding).

Do you happen to be related to woodruff?

[Metsfanmax]

Again, you don't make sense. It can also be logical to pass a law banning something and then not enforce the law--e.g. most price controls set by municipal governments during the colonial period of the US. You'll continue digging your heels into a position which is silly, so have at it.

I cannot respond to the specific example you're bringing up because I know basically nothing about colonial U.S. price controls. But when it comes to a ban on something like drug consumption or distribution, the ban is essentially meaningless if it's not enforced. Most people do not value a law simply because it is on the books (hence the prevalence of speeding).

Do you happen to be related to woodruff?

He's my uncle.

[BigBallinStalin]

And, you still have no regard for the beneficial effects of people distributing the pipes (more efficiently) at higher prices.

Sure I do, I said so several posts ago:

And even if they do, they're still using the safe crack pipe, which was the point.

Oh, that's great. I looked at the context, but you weren't understanding the consequences. Maybe you do now. You're still wrong about everything else, but hopefully you can figure out why.

Wow, just gotta say: your reasoning for supporting enforcement was pretty poor.

I didn't say I support enforcement. I said that if the law exists, it makes sense for public policy makers to enforce the law, since presumably they support it.

"I'm not saying that I support a ban on retail drug paraphernalia -- but as long as the ban exists, you might as well enforce it."

That's definitely a statement favoring enforcement.

No, it's definitely not. This is basic logic. There is essentially no point in having a ban on something if you don't plan to enforce it.

Sorry, Mets, but I can't debate someone who constantly changes their position.

I hope you realize that I never have a desire to debate you, so feel free to take your arguments elsewhere.

It can also be logical to pass a law banning something and then not enforce the law--e.g. most price controls set by municipal governments during the colonial period of the US. You please one crowd while not annoying another (by keeping enforcement nonexistent or very low). You should know this from the many laws which prohibit X but are never enforced (e.g. certain sexual acts).

Again, you don't make sense, but as with past moments such as these, you'll continue digging your heels and insist on the nonsensical. Or you'll attempt a jedi mind about how what you said was not really said as it was said but was rather something else. It's all very Playerian, which isn't healthy.

[Metsfanmax]

It can also be logical to pass a law banning something and then not enforce the law--e.g. most price controls set by municipal governments during the colonial period of the US. You please one crowd while not annoying another (by keeping enforcement nonexistent or very low). You should know this from the many laws which prohibit X but are never enforced (e.g. certain sexual acts).

Unless you are supporting the idea of making something formally illegal and then not enforcing it, then this argument just proves my point. I obviously don't think it makes sense to technically ban something just to score political points.

Again, you don't make sense, but as with past moments such as these, you'll continue digging your heels and insist on the nonsensical. Or you'll attempt a jedi mind about how what you said was not really said as it was said but was rather something else. It's all very Playerian, which isn't healthy.

Here's a tip. No one cares for your condescension.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, you're fitting the pattern. I just made it clear ahead of time, so I can point it out to you twice.

Do you have Asperger's syndrome perchance?

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree it doesn't sound as effective as clean needle initiatives. However, introducing a cheap and readily available clean/not chipped supply of crack pipes would probably decrease transmission risks.

yes, they probably end up sharing the new pipes, but a brand new clean pipe that is then shared probably has a lower transmission risk, than say one that has been used for a very long time. Also I doubt this is a very costly initiative if it reduces transmission of HIV and hepatitis even by a small amount it'd be worth it.

That's a big IF, but gambling with other people's money sounds like a good idea, I guess.

[mrswdk]

What should be done when Chinese pipe makers start selling crack pipes for half the price and Am*rican pipe makers start losing their jobs?

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, you're fitting the pattern. I just made it clear ahead of time, so I can point it out to you twice.

That's very kind of you, but this is more like the 24th time than the second time. You do not have a monopoly on the ability to make correct arguments.

I am accusing you of supporting anti-sodomy laws. Are you going to concede this?

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, you're fitting the pattern. I just made it clear ahead of time, so I can point it out to you twice.

That's very kind of you, but this is more like the 24th time than the second time. You do not have a monopoly on the ability to make correct arguments.

I am accusing you of supporting anti-sodomy laws. Are you going to concede this?

Dig those heels in, Mets.

[BigBallinStalin]

What should be done when Chinese pipe makers start selling crack pipes for half the price and Am*rican pipe makers start losing their jobs?

Subsidize the American pipe makers while enforcing imaginary laws against pipe-making. I think that's the 'liberal' response.

[Baron Von PWN]

I agree it doesn't sound as effective as clean needle initiatives. However, introducing a cheap and readily available clean/not chipped supply of crack pipes would probably decrease transmission risks.

yes, they probably end up sharing the new pipes, but a brand new clean pipe that is then shared probably has a lower transmission risk, than say one that has been used for a very long time. Also I doubt this is a very costly initiative if it reduces transmission of HIV and hepatitis even by a small amount it'd be worth it.

That's a big IF, but gambling with other people's money sounds like a good idea, I guess.

Well the organizations behind this are Insite and Portland Hotel Society. Insite receives public assistance for it's main activity, providing a safe injection site, but it isn't an enormous amount considering it's mandate (500k a year).

either way they have a theory that it may reduce transmissions of disease. Only one way to find out and that is to test it.