Before you throw stones, you should re-examine what I wrote.
Actually, you basically fell into the same logical trap as did zeppelin. You are shouting “hypocrite,” by which you are implying inconsistency in application of principle, when in fact what you are criticizing are the principles themselves – in this case, the categorization of the drugs into “legal” and “illegal”.
Simply, the “drug warriors” are being consistent according to their own categorization system – whether you agree with that categorization is irrelevant provided they are consistent – at least as it relates to the charge of “hyporcite.”
If you want to charge stupidity, or ineffectiveness, or irrelevance of criteria, you are making a different argument – one about the criteria, not about consistency in applying said criteria.
Take, for example, your examples of “inconsistency” – You wrote:
"And yes, they are inconsistent, because:
- Shooting the smack and taking prescription pills cause similar effects, and have similar endangerements to those around you (impaired motor skills, etc.)"
My response: This is obviously about the effectiveness of the criteria, not about the consistency of treating a “legal” drug differently than an “illegal” drug once those classifications have been made. You’re comparing the effects of the drugs, not the consistency of the “drug warriors” in applying their categories.
You wrote: “2. People are shot and killed for heroin, the same as they are for oxy-cotin (the most-often drug targeted for theft in armed robberies of pharmecies)”
My response: This is another argument based upon the effectiveness of the categories. You are arguing that because people do illegal things to obtain both, they should be treated the same. This has nothing to do with whether people were consistent in treating them according to how they are categorized.
You wrote: “3. They are both illegal when bought on the black market.”
My response: You are still arguing against the caterogies. This time, you are saying that there is no difference in the categorization, because the action to obtain them erases the distinction. However, irrespective of how they are obtained, they are classified differently under the law. We are classifying the substances, not the acts to obtain them. “Illegal drugs” as I set up my simple juxtaposition above, were drugs it is illegal to possess pretty much irrespective of how you came by them; “legal drugs” were drugs you could easily obtain with a doctor’s presciption.
Lastly, you summed up your post by arguing against the distinction, not the application of the distinction.
You wrote: "The only “distinction” between the two is one of class - more wealthy whites use script drugs, lower class whites and minorities more often abuse “illegal” drugs.
Guess what class lawmakers and fatmouth pundits like Rush tend to be in??"
My response: You pretty well said it yourself. You’re arguing against the distinction.
As I made clear in my original post, I am not arguing for or against the distinction. I am merely pointing out that the “drug warriors” are acting in a manner that is quite consistent with their classification system in treating those who obtain prescription drugs illegally and those in possession of illegal substances.
I actually agree with you in terms of heroin and oxy-contin – they are both opiates, chemically and effectively very similar substances. And both are much stronger drugs than marijuana, which is technically an illegal substance. But that’s not the point. It wasn’t the point of the original post, and it wasn’t the point of my response.