The Ultimate Capitalist Horror?

[redstar2000]

The vaccine prompts the body's immune system to create antibodies which bind nicotine or cocaine in a person's bloodstream, preventing it from travelling into the brain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/3092690.stm

Is there no limit to their infamy? :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[caliban]

Fuck the vaccine....DON'T START smoking, banging, snorting,etc. Did anyone tell George W. about this....he won't be pleased. :D

[Dark Capitalist]

I'd think you guys would be all for this. I mean, it has the potential to seriously damage the tobacco industry the Americas.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck that.
If I want to smoke or snort it's MY DAMN BUSINESS!!!!!!!!
Who the hell would submit this treatment upon themselves?
Or would it be *forced* on to people?

Tell me this is a joke! :blink:

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 01:47 AM
The vaccine prompts the body's immune system to create antibodies which bind nicotine or cocaine in a person's bloodstream, preventing it from travelling into the brain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/3092690.stm

Is there no limit to their infamy? :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
So, people use those drugs because they love the effect, and they won't stop because the addiction physically gets removed, the biggest addiction is in their mind. And no vaccine will help you with that ...

[187]

What exactly is the problem with this?

People could smoke without the fear of addiction. :)

[Wolfie]

I started then quit then started then quit, smoking is bad, take my word, you cant taste aswell after a while, but you do have to have lasting willpower, it wont work if you quit for a fortnight and then expect the craving never to return.

[synthesis]

I'm not sure that that's exactly how it would work, 187.

What this would seemingly do would be to allow the drugs and their resultant harmful effects into a person's system (through the bloodstream) while preventing the user from feeling any 'euphoric' effects.

If this is true, then it would be enough to both satisfy cravings induced by established physical addictions and create new physical addictions in new users, while not allowing the drugs to affect the areas of one's brain that create the aforementioned euphoric effect.

A false panacea, to be sure. But, I could be wrong with my analysis, if someone wants to point out any glaring errors I've made.

I think the main problem, 187, is that it's forcing something upon people that should be their own personal choice.

Very "Big Brother"-ish. It's not quite on the level of, say, abolishing the orgasm, but it's still one step further towards totalitarianism and a public accepting of such totalitarianism.

[synthesis]

I would like to add, redstar, that I find the fact that you consider a vaccination against smoking to be "the ultimate capitalist horror" is pretty laughable and self-serving.

Nothing personal. :)

[redstar2000]

I would like to add, redstar, that I find the fact that you consider a vaccination against smoking to be "the ultimate capitalist horror" is pretty laughable and self-serving.

Of course it's self-serving! :lol:

Interestingly enough, I think the tobacco corporations and the cocaine industry might very well end up supporting this initiative.

Why? Well, a human immune system cannot produce an infinite quantity of antibodies to anything. Smoke or snort enough, and there won't be sufficient antibodies to bind to all of the molecules of nicotine or cocaine...and some will reach the brain anyway.

So the two-pack-a-day smoker (me!) may have to buy four packs a day. The one-gram-a-day cocaine user will have to purchase two grams every day.

Pretty clever, eh?

Note by the way that they do plan to force the vaccine on children...that is, parents can make their kids take the shots.

It's "for their own good" of course: the eternal "justification" for every form of tyranny.

In simple justice, I suggest the vaccine should be marketed under the name "Moskitto".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[cubist]

redstar.
you would be vary silly to do that and potentially impossible

the vaccine contains a deactivated cholera virus wchi will bind to the nicotine then the anti bodies pick it up now if it is tru and you use enough to use up all you antibodies then you will have the equivilant of HIV only temporarily but that is dangerous, also it recognises that nicotine is bad and just eats them after a while.

The point of the vaccine is to firstly make the cell too big to pass through the blood barrier on the outer layer of the brain. then to make the immune system rrealise its bad and set about destroying it with the anti bodies.

also the human body should have more than 1.5 Grams of cocaine in the blood so that would be very dangerous not to mention the more you do the more you need.

red star i didn't think antibodies die after eating virus's so thye will never get that low.

also the vaccine won't remove the oral fixation of having a cigarette.

cocaine will be replaced by a more sythetic version its worth too much to be iradicated.
GHB maybe

[sc4r]

Just exactly why is this an infamous Capitalist horror? Why would the exact same product not be made by a socialist regime (obviously with different payment and distribution criteria; but thats not at all specific to this) ?

Whether it works or not is another question; but if it does do what it says and helps people quit smoking / frugs, then where is the big objection.

To me Redstar it looks like there is no limit to your paranoia and dislike of anything that isnt strictly Redstar'ism. You hate Capitalists, Liberals, Stalinists, Fascists, Leninists, Reformists, Market Socialists, Mao'ists; Americans; and on and on. In fact as far as I can see absolutely everybody as enemies except those few anarchists who fail to see through your nonsense, the unemployed, and an assorted bag of anti social criminal types.

[187]

Good points were raised. I retract my statement.

I still think it's hardly a "Capitalist" move however....

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 02:47 AM
The vaccine prompts the body's immune system to create antibodies which bind nicotine or cocaine in a person's bloodstream, preventing it from travelling into the brain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/3092690.stm

Is there no limit to their infamy? :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
LOL, where would Redstar be without his being able to poison his brain further.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Redstarism.....better known as the "the end of civilisation"


Before you reply RS, I will do it for you;



And who is to say what civilisation is?

Perhaps we should all agree that the sheep herder's view of civilatation is exactly what the masses want because they have no ability to think for them selves as they are simple sheep that need to be tended

I for one say to hell with your Leninist pub-rhetoric that induces a new conception of wage slavery that keeps the sheep nice and content with their new and improved masters!

If this is our future then please allow me to exit gracefully stage right!

Unless of course you have a fondness for mutton!



:redstar2000:

___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas






Sometimes I kill myself.

[Bianconero]

:lol:

Don't tease Comrade redstar2000.

[CubanFox]

I think the rape of the Third World is far worse than something that stops you smoking two packs a day, Redstar.

[elijahcraig]

Poor ole RS, pouting 'cause he can't have "freedom".

:lol:

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 10:20 AM
I think the rape of the Third World is far worse than something that stops you smoking two packs a day, Redstar.
I would've thought that Redstar's determination to criticise U.S. imperialism and capitalism, especially their adventures in the third world, would've been noticed?

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 12:20 AM
I think the rape of the Third World is far worse than something that stops you smoking two packs a day, Redstar.
Well indeed it is, they should enlighten these people a bit more and once they are a bit smarter they can take care over themselves. But offcourse with the eye of the west looking on what they do, you don't want to make africa a new mass power.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Comrade James+Sep 13 2003, 03:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade James @ Sep 13 2003, 03:15 AM)
[email protected] 13 2003, 10:20 AM
I think the rape of the Third World is far worse than something that stops you smoking two packs a day, Redstar.
I would&#39;ve thought that Redstar&#39;s determination to criticise U.S. imperialism and capitalism, especially their adventures in the third world, would&#39;ve been noticed? [/b]
Well James, Pol Pot thought the same thing. Perhaps it is time you found a new icon to worship.

[sergio]

raf,

Why are you such gloomy commie asshole? You are AMERICAN&#33; You live in world&#39;s greatest country surrounded by the beautiful girl. Yet you complain, complain, complain like Jerry springers trailor trash. Do you have no girlfriend. Can you not find girl? Why don&#39;t you hire prostitute. It might make you happier man. Maybe the administrators will lend you money.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I spent all my quid on 8 hookers and 2 grammes of crack yesterday.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Sep 13 2003, 05:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Sep 13 2003, 05:53 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected]Sep 13 2003, 03:15 AM

[email protected] 13 2003, 10:20 AM
I think the rape of the Third World is far worse than something that stops you smoking two packs a day, Redstar.
I would&#39;ve thought that Redstar&#39;s determination to criticise U.S. imperialism and capitalism, especially their adventures in the third world, would&#39;ve been noticed?
Well James, Pol Pot thought the same thing. Perhaps it is time you found a new icon to worship. [/b]
Oh, but you forget that I&#39;m anarchist hippy scum -- I don&#39;t worship anyone.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 07:58 AM
raf,

Why are you such gloomy commie asshole? You are AMERICAN&#33; You live in world&#39;s greatest country surrounded by the beautiful girl. Yet you complain, complain, complain like Jerry springers trailor trash. Do you have no girlfriend. Can you not find girl? Why don&#39;t you hire prostitute. It might make you happier man. Maybe the administrators will lend you money.
Everyone can get a girl, don&#39;t ask how some look like :D

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 13 2003, 09:10 AM
I spent all my quid on 8 hookers and 2 grammes of crack yesterday.
LOL i loved you Redstar2000 responce, classic, but out of interest where do you live? Coz I heard you make mention of being a former "guest" at Brixton.

[Saint-Just]

Is it not better to stop people having access to nicotine and cocaine rather than vaccinating them?

I do not care about nicotine however I think it is a good idea to prevent cocaine use. However, people will use other drugs that they have not been vaccinated against. It would be best to rid society of those harmful class of drugs completely.

Redstar2000, do you not think that smoking would be as enjoyable without the nicotine? I am not saying it would not be as enjoyable but would like to know whether you think it would be. I think people should have choose whether they want to smoke or not though.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 13 2003, 03:57 PM
I think people should have choose whether they want to smoke or not though.
I can&#39;t say it better then that

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why don&#39;t they just go ahead and castrate everyone as soon as they&#39;re born? That would prevetnt people from having sex and transimting VDs, eh?[/sarcasm]

This sounds like a fine idea for people who want to quit smoking (if it is found that it won&#39;t actualy have the opposite effect), but I think that nobody should be able to give this crap vaccine to children who don&#39;t smoke.

In the article it was mentioned that the effect may be that people could try to use even more drugs to satisfy their cravings, like Restar said. I think that this may be a likely scenarion, eh?

I would also like to see cocaine removed from people&#39;s reach. This vaccine, however, is not a very good solution because of the possible side effects it could have on some people with very addictive personalities.

[Desert Fox]

Trying to remove coke from the streets is like trying to drain the ocean, IMPOSSIBLE :o

[chamo]

I think cigarettes are the real ultimate capitalist horror.

Think about it, you smoke a few until you become addicted, you can&#39;t stop even if you want to and you keep squandering money on them, exploiting more workers every time you take a few more puffs.

Not to mention the fact that you are actually killing yourself, and all the time big corporations are making money off your vulnerability. You are made to be addicted to something you have to spend money on.

I think this vaccine is a great thing, especially they way that no-one becomes addicted or forced to use it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Enigma+Sep 13 2003, 01:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Sep 13 2003, 01:18 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 13 2003, 09:10 AM
I spent all my quid on 8 hookers and 2 grammes of crack yesterday.
LOL i loved you Redstar2000 responce, classic, but out of interest where do you live? Coz I heard you make mention of being a former "guest" at Brixton. [/b]
I was a guest in the late eightees. (I was on the 2 year bring-your-own-special brew plan)

I&#39;ve spent the last 9 years in Mexico and the USA.

[CubanFox]

Do you live in Lobster Paradise (aka Orlando), RAF?

[Guest1]

oh no, redstar wants freedom of choice, and freedom over your own body&#33; what horrible blasphemy&#33;

ATHEIST&#33; DELINQUANT&#33; ANARCHIST&#33; FREEDOM FIGHTER&#33; REVOLUTIONARY&#33;

RAF, stop attacking redstar. freedom is the life-giving water for the soul. not that you would care, soul-less masses are easier to control. pesky workers asking for their freedom... <_<

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 14 2003, 03:15 AM
oh no, redstar wants freedom of choice, and freedom over your own body&#33; what horrible blasphemy&#33;

ATHEIST&#33; DELINQUANT&#33; ANARCHIST&#33; FREEDOM FIGHTER&#33; REVOLUTIONARY&#33;

RAF, stop attacking redstar. freedom is the life-giving water for the soul. not that you would care, soul-less masses are easier to control. pesky workers asking for their freedom... <_<
And I thought Liberals were rightwingers :huh:

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 14 2003, 03:15 AM
oh no, redstar wants freedom of choice, and freedom over your own body&#33; what horrible blasphemy&#33;

ATHEIST&#33; DELINQUANT&#33; ANARCHIST&#33; FREEDOM FIGHTER&#33; REVOLUTIONARY&#33;

RAF, stop attacking redstar. freedom is the life-giving water for the soul. not that you would care, soul-less masses are easier to control. pesky workers asking for their freedom... <_<
Everybody will claim that in essence they want to give freedom and choice to everybody. But &#39;freedom&#39; is nowhere near as easy to deliver as it is to say. The reason is that you cannot ignore the fact that there are multiple people all wanting &#39;freedom&#39; and that they cannot all be given total postive freedom and total negative freedom at the same time.

Hence while sloganeers like RS (and many many capitalists too) will demand it, and promise it, they find it impossible to respond to detailed questions about how exactly they are going to bring the trick off. What they always resort to is a) evade the question entirely and simply promise that every type of freedom will be given to everybody b) denounce anyone not foolish enough to promise the impossible as being anti- freedom.

If you are totally free to take any positive action you like then you potentially impact on my negative freedom to continue existing without being molested by you. It is simply impossible to grant a full measure of both things to both of us.

That in a nutshell is the actual problem.

As a consequence any society has to decide what the rules of behaviour actually are going to be. It has to work out how to deliver the optimum balance of freedoms.

But that is not all a society is balancing. People want to be free, true. But they also want to be healthy and happy and a myriad of other things. If you like to think of it that way then they want to be free to simply demand that they have these things. But of course nobody can magically grant that sort of freedom. Because by deciding as a 5 yr old that you smoke 50 cigs a day you are impacting on your freedom to decide how long you will live.

So a decent society will decide that your freedom to do things right now must in some circumstances be curtailed in order to give you a fuller measure of total freedom.

There is no book of absolutes that can be consulted saying just exactly how all these myriad types of freedom can best be balanced. People have to judge, and the consensus view adopted by people of how to maximise freedoms is what defines their society.

&#39;Freedom&#39; as a demand or a promise is a simple evasion. It&#39;s a slogan, nothing more. All arguments are actually about HOW best to deliver maximum freedom. Those who resort to saying that anyone else is &#39;not allowing / wanting people to be free&#39; are either very unsophisticated in their thinking or simply trying to drown out different views by invoking a completely dishonest picture of what they are promising and what others are saying.

The test is always simple. Someone who says &#39;I think it would be good to have the freedom to {do whatever} and this would have the following consequences on other freedoms..... are making a valid statement; you might argue with them about whether their preffered balance is actually desirable, you might point out that tghere are other consequences they have not thought about, but you are discussing substance. However those who say , &#39;I demand freedom&#39; are saying nothing whatsoever.

Freedom to do one thing, will always limit your freedom to do another. It is always really about balance. The Capitalists freedom to aquire great wealth is achieved by limiting the freedom of other people to even enjoy fair prosperity. The fact that the individuals are not named is irrelevant. Under Capitalism you cannot have both freedoms. Socialism does the reverse it limits the freedom of a few to aquire massive wealth and instead provides a greater measure of freedom to many. Which you prefer and why is the real question.

[Guest1]

With all respect, you&#39;ve swallowed some propaganda in your breakfast. I never said giving someone all freedoms, the freedom to kill or the freedom to oppress. I&#39;m talking about personal fredom over your body, and telling me that that&#39;s one that needs to be sacrificed is absolute bullshit. There are very few freedoms that we must sacrifice. A vaccine that is not undoable being applied to children without their choice is very much a curtailment of their freedom. The vaccine is not meant to keep them from smoking when they&#39;re five years old, it&#39;s meant to stop them smoking when they turn 18 and can choose. There&#39;s nothing wrong with the vaccine if it was used only on people who ask for it, but that&#39;s not the plan. And it scares me.

So does your puritanical drivel about "balanced" freedom.

[sc4r]

The idea that there is anything &#39;puritanical&#39; about me is laughable. I&#39;d like to maximise freedom just as you would, but to my eye freedom is a rather more complex subject than it seems to you. This could be because I actually do care about it, rather than use the word as a way of gaining an advantage in discussions (or it could not be, others will have to judge for themselves on that).

I kinda think that like all of us you just hate to hear anything that seems to provide a challenge to what you have already decided is correct and makes it less &#39;obviously right&#39;. Chances are that you dont like it that I&#39;m effectively asking you to do a little more work on your beliefs than simply state them as being correct.

I cant do much about it if you choose to simplify what I&#39;m saying so that it appears you can dismiss it in the way that you do. If its the case that I&#39;m not being clear enough I can try to rectify the situation, and I will try. Unfortunately its not an easy subject with simple answers. Why this itself is not obvious given the pasionate discussion that has gone on about it probably since man first learned how to commuinicate and co-operate without a definitive resolution ever being reached I dont know.

Only one being (an imaginary one, God) has complete freedom. For all the rest of us we have degrees of freedom in a limited number of directions (even though the number of directions is of course huge).

Every one of us curtails our freedom each time we do, or dont do something. Because the action or inaction has consequences which are unavoidable - If I eat my chocky bar now I wont have the freedom to do so in 1/2 an hour; I might like to have the freedom to to both, but I cannot.

Now you may be right that in impinging on a childs freedom to choose whether to acept an anti-smoking drug is not an acceptable trade-off for increasing his freedom to live without tobacco dependency or the risk of disease in the future; But it certainly is not the case that you are the one dvocating freedom, while others are not. All you are doing is saying that to you one of the freedoms outweighs the other. Other people are saying the reverse. I dont pretend that the motivations of everyone saying this will be pure as driven snow; some of them will be attempting to increase their own freedom to become wealthy at the cost of limiting the childs freedom. Motivation is something we have to try and judge and screen out, thats fair enough.

The point you see is that at the moment before such a drug is administered the child potentially has both freedoms available to him/her. But by administering, or not administering it, we change one freedom (choice of whether to take it) or the other (some possible choice of lifestyle). If it so happens that the child is allowed to choose and takes the drug obviously he has retained both freedoms. But if he is allowed the choice and declines then he has lost one type of freedom.

The question then is to what extent we will favour maximisiing freedom in the present (effectively what liberals call &#39;negative freedom&#39; - please dont argue about negativity etc. this is not what it means) or in the future (more or less equating to liberl &#39;positive freedom&#39;). Negative freedom is a good deal less complex to consider and it is a seductive dctrine until you start to think about how a society comprised of people all exercising total negative freedom could operate. It is perhaps ironic that lassez faire Capitalists are strongly in favour of negative freedom (though they always ignore that their ideas cannot operate without a masive constraint upon this type of freedom in the form of respect for liberal property rights). Anarchists (to my mind) are even worse in this respect, they talk about maximising negative freedom (and dont of course have the property rights constraint) but actually dont propose a society which has any cohesive organisation, because such cohesion is always created precisely by limiting negative (present) freedom in some way.

With respect to this argument in general it quite simply comes down to whether a child is competent to decide for itself whether it should limit its future freedom of action or not; whether society would be smart or compasionate to allow this. I say no. I do not regard it as good for the child to allow it this present freedom at the potential cost that it may limit its future freedom; and I will not allow ideology to prevent me from wanting the best for people.

If you truly do feel that a child is competent, or if you do not care as much about the child as about ideology then fair enough, there is nothing for us to argue about as such; it would simply be case of seeing which of us has the most support if the issue became a practical one.

But if you are arguing, as you sem to be, that there is something inherrently wrong with my analysis of freedom, and wish to effectively say that you care more about it than I do, them you are flat wrong. You care more about maximising negative freedom than I do perhaps, but that is all. You wont find me allowing you (or RS) to get away with the perjurative accusation that I&#39;m against freedom, I am not.

Best wishes. Because leaving aside the one or two insulting references to myself (which seem almost mandatory from some people) you actually said something worth responding to.

Hopefully you will think through what I&#39;ve said before responding, though I&#39;m probably an optimist to think you will.

[Vinny Rafarino]

RAF, stop attacking redstar. freedom is the life-giving water for the soul. not that you would care, soul-less masses are easier to control. pesky workers asking for their freedom...



:lol:

[Guest1]

to sc4r, I had had a bad day and I appologize for the personal remarks.

but I still htink we are arguing two different things. I don&#39;t think the child should be given the choice at all. precisely because it is not competent to make the decision. when someone turns 18 however, I think this vaccine should be available. It is, to me, rediculous that a child be "vaccinated" against a guilty, even unhealthy, pleasure before s/he can decide for him/herself.

second point. I believe you are also complicating the idea of personal freedom far too much. while I agree that there are cases where a choice must be made by society, I believe that should be left to institutions like the supreme court and in the extremes, to the voters. but when it comes to the basics, one&#39;s control over one&#39;s own body, it should definitely rest with the individual. and no one should be allowed to interfere with it before s/he turns 18, in order to preserve that choice.

to clarify one more thing, I see your point about society choosing health over personal choice. but I don&#39;t believe it is society&#39;s place to make that decision.

and that is my opinion, and that is what I mean when I say freedom. you may have a different definition of how to "maximize" freedom.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 15 2003, 12:26 AM
to sc4r, I had had a bad day and I appologize for the personal remarks.

but I still htink we are arguing two different things. I don&#39;t think the child should be given the choice at all. precisely because it is not competent to make the decision. when someone turns 18 however, I think this vaccine should be available. It is, to me, rediculous that a child be "vaccinated" against a guilty, even unhealthy, pleasure before s/he can decide for him/herself.

second point. I believe you are also complicating the idea of personal freedom far too much. while I agree that there are cases where a choice must be made by society, I believe that should be left to institutions like the supreme court and in the extremes, to the voters. but when it comes to the basics, one&#39;s control over one&#39;s own body, it should definitely rest with the individual. and no one should be allowed to interfere with it before s/he turns 18, in order to preserve that choice.

to clarify one more thing, I see your point about society choosing health over personal choice. but I don&#39;t believe it is society&#39;s place to make that decision.

and that is my opinion, and that is what I mean when I say freedom. you may have a different definition of how to "maximize" freedom.
Thanks. I should really have said &#39;very minor personal remarks&#39;; because thats all they were. They certainly would not be sufficient to give genuine offence, and I suppose I was overreacting even in mentioning them.

I do see what you are saying now. I disagree, but I dont think your position is untenable or inconsistent, just not the same position I would take.

The problem with leaving the choice in this particular case until someone is 18 (or 16 or whenever you judge a peson to be fully capable of making decisions for themselves) is that many people start smoking much younger. 12 or 13 is fairly common, 8/9/10 is far from being all that unusual.

I stress though I&#39;m not advocating actually following this course of acyion with this particular drug. I know far too little about it. My remarks were directed at the idea that in some way their is something absolutely repugnant and &#39;capitalist&#39; about the whole idea. I cannot see that their is (in fact a lassez faire capitalist would take exactly the position you do anyway).

I dont really see that we are in fact arguing at all about personal choice vs society in general at all now. I also would not advocate allowing choices about just anything to be made by just anybody on behalf of a minor; only the specific decisions mandated by society at large (i.e the &#39;suppreme court or parliament or whatever). Obviously I would not see that each individual decision made for each individual child should be referred to those bodies (I assume this is not what you are saying either) but would be delegated (to parents in some cases, to doctors or social workers in others) or simply applied across the board.

Freedom is actually a very difficult subject indeed; mainly because it has been adopted as a nice stirring warcry by so many people. The fact is that usually when a particular group calls for &#39;freedom&#39; in practise it is fairly obvious what constraints they are demanding should be removed. But there is actually no such thing as &#39;freedom&#39; itself as an absolute and its when it is this very abstract notion of &#39;freedom&#39; that is called for in theoretical contexts that it becomes worthless and meaningless. People who realise this do as you did and address the substance of the particualr issue.

A pleasure to talk with ya mate.

Best wishes again.

[Guest1]

I see your point now as well, though I still disagree.

I love to find people who I can disagree with and still respect :D

[sc4r]

ditto

May the road rise with you.