Drug lethality

Of the drugs that Americans routinely abuse, many of them are quite toxic. Take a look at this:

The median lethal doses for different substances in a 100kg male:

nicotine 5 g
Cocaine 9.5 g
aspirin 20 g
THC (main ingredient of marijuana) 127g
alcohol: 180 g
caffeine 192 g

acetaminophen (Tylenol): 200 g
table salt: 300 g

Sucrose (table sugar): 2900 g

The issue here is not so much the total lethal dose, but how close you must be to the lethal dose in order to get the effect you are looking for. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (often called “ecstasy”) and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or “roofies”) and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I’ve found no published cases in the that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My guess is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it, but still safer than alcohol.

Alcohol ranks at the dangerous end of the toxicity spectrum. So despite the fact that about 75 percent of all adults in the United States enjoy an occasional drink, it must be remembered that alcohol is toxic. This makes me wonder why we spend so much money on the drug war. Nevermind, the answer is profit.

The food police

Michelle Obama’s pet cause is childhood obesity, and spends a considerable amount of her time lecturing us on how we should be eating healthy, even to the point of advocating for regulating the restaurant industry. Except, look at the menu for the White House Superbowl party: bratwurst, kielbasa, cheeseburgers,
 and deep dish pizza. This is not the first time the first lady has been caught in her hypocrisy. In October, the first lady veggie gardener downed a cheeseburger and French fries in a Milwaukee diner. I recently blogged about how people always SAY that they want healthy foods, but when it comes down to it, people actually buy food that isn’t so healthy. The reason for this is obvious: rice cakes covered in bee spit might be good for you, but it tastes like crap.

Where do Mexican crime guns come from?

According to the Washington Post, they come from the United States:

No other state has produced more guns seized by police in the brutal Mexican drug wars than Texas. In the Lone Star State, no other city has more guns linked to Mexican crime scenes than Houston.

Of course, that is a bit of a misdirection, as others have shown. However, why isn’t anyone talking about taking the guns away from the US Border Patrol, in light of this story?

A Mexican woman is under arrest after agents at the Andrade Port of Entry discover a stolen gun in her possession.

The 25-year old woman was taken into custody on Saturday after agents at the border discovered the woman had a gun they say belongs to the US Border Patrol.

Orlando Slantinel Opinion on Open Carry

The Orlando Sentinel Slantinel has published a commentary by columnist Mike Thomas on the Florida Open Carry movement. I want to take a few moments and respond to his screed.

So you are walking down Park Avenue, window shopping for all the stuff you once could afford, and suddenly coming down the sidewalk you see three gunslingers.

It’s like the Wild West except they’re drinking lattes, and instead of six-shooters, they have Glocks clipped to their matching Gucci belts.

Would this bother you?

Well, it could happen because the “open carry” movement has come to Florida.

More “wild West” references. I remember the Sentinel (and other outlets) bringing out the tired references to the “wild west” every time there is a gun law coming up that they don’t like. Funny thing is, the wild west scenario they dream of never seems to happen.

Open carry means just that. Any law-abiding citizen is allowed to openly carry a handgun.

If they are law abiding, why is it a problem? Don’t you anti gun people who oppose our rights constantly say that the goal is to disarm criminals? Since I can already carry a concealed firearm nearly anywhere I want, what you are really afraid of is seeing the icky, scary guns. The only thing that changes with this law is that I won’t have to worry if my coat flies open on a windy day. 

These guys conduct open carry demonstrations, where they stand around like exhibitionists, exposing their weaponry for all to see. What would Freud think?

 Insert obligatory dick reference here.

They even have figured out a way to hold these events in Florida. By state law, you are allowed to open carry while you are fishing — a frightening thought if you’ve ever been to Sebastian Inlet at the opening of snook season.

So they go to fishing piers and stand around with their guns on hips, pretending to fish. And if someone hooks a stingray, they’re not even allowed to shoot it. Well, maybe if the stingray raises its tail it would be legal under Stand Your Ground.

GASP!! Law abiding citizens have found a way to COMPLY WITH THE LAW. Then, we slam on the Stand Your Ground Law at the same time. Aren’t you clever!

Read the whole thing, and you will understand why I canceled my subscription to that paper.

Images courtesy of Rob Allen

Sometimes I amaze myself

I am giving myself a pat on the back. I posted about the fire department in Tennessee this morning. Uncle posts about an attack on Libertarianism at this site here. In this site, the blogger posts:

This fire is a the result of libertarian land. In libertarian land, collective action is forbidden so taxes cannot pay for fire departments. Without taxes, you must rely on the voluntary subscription to services (or after the fact fees, but for something like firefighting that requires a large and constant maintenance cost, after the fact fees aren’t going to be enough to keep a fire department active). If you must rely on a voluntary subscription service, then you must discourage free loaders. If you must discourage free loaders, then you must let the homes of the poor, or unlucky or plan stupid burn to the ground.

 To which, I posted this reply:

Of course, you have the alternative: You turn the $75 fee into a property tax, and anyone who doesn’t pay has his house foreclosed on and taken away by the taxing authority to pay the taxes.

This taxing authority also needs staffing, and so hires personnel to handle the taxes. With this new overhead, the previously voluntary $75 fee is now a mandatory $150 tax.

If you do not pay, they take your house. When they send the sheriff to your house to evict you, if you resist, he activates the SWAT team, and they gun you down. Then they raise the tax to $250 so they can cover the expenses of the SWAT team.

Isn’t that much better?

Yes, the Libertarian way is heartless and cruel, and the collectivist way at least insured that the house didn’t burn down. The owners are dead or homeless, but at least the house didn’t burn down.

Edited to add: This is an email response to this post:

No. The police in Europe will never kill you, in Europe we don`t do that any more, you Americans probably do. You Americans just don`t get it do you; You can`t run a whole country the same way as a McDonalds restaurant!

Ok, I guess Americans know best, you have the best systems and don`t need to be lectured by anyone about anything. You are simply the best, right? 

 This guy doesn’t understand that there are only two ways to conduct any sort of business: By force, or by voluntary cooperation. If I refuse to pay my taxes, how else can the government force me to pay, except through force? If I resist their force with force of my own, do you think the cops are going to give up, or will they increase the force they employ until I submit?

People are too greedy for libertarianism

There is a lot of buzz on the internet about the South Fulton fire department. In case you haven’t read it, this is the town fire department who provided fire services to the surrounding area, if the homeowner paid a membership fee. In this case, they allowed a house to burn down because the homeowner had not paid the fee. I am no going to discuss this particular incident, as I agree with Firefighter, who has posted an excellent analysis here.

Instead, I want to talk about a more general issue. The people commenting here say that Libertarianism will never work because it is cruel. They are wrong, the real reason why the Libertarian philosophy will never work is that people always want the power to make others give them what they want, but never want to pay for it. Everyone has their issue: the homeless, healthcare, Fire service, whatever.

There are only two ways to get people to do things for you: voluntarily, or involuntarily. Do you think that people should interact voluntarily? If so, then you must allow people to set the standard by which they will provide that care.

If the doctor says that he will only provide care for money, and the patient has no money, then there are only four options:

A. You pay the bill on the other person’s behalf (voluntary donation)
B. You force the provider to provide the service/product for free (forced compliance- slavery)
C. You allow the provider to turn the non-paying person away (voluntary noncooperation)
D. You force others to pay the bill (forced donation- legalized theft)

Libertarians believe that the only fair and proper answer is A or C.
Socialists believe that the only proper answer is B or D.

For those who believe that we have a responsibility to feed/clothe/care for people who cannot pay, just how do you think that the people providing the service will provide it?

How will the hospital pay its staff? How will the fire trucks get fuel? How will restaurants get food for the homeless? How much of your own money have you given to the cause? Do you allow a homeless man to live in your spare bedroom?

If you are not willing to use your own money and resources to provide that service or product, then why do you get to compel me to use mine? Giving away other people’s money and possessions is not charity. One post there said:

The measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Libertarians demand that the US score exactly zero.

That is incorrect. Libertarians are not against voluntary charity. They are simply against “charity” at the point of a gun. A tax that takes money from one person and uses it purely for the benefit of another is not charity, it is theft.

Another trillion, down the drain

October 1, 2009. On that date, the Federal Debt was $11.9 trillion. Here we are, the beginning of the new fiscal year, and the national debt is now $13.6 trillion. This means that for FY2010, the Federal Government spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in.

For those keeping track, the Obama administration has borrowed $3 trillion in the 20 months that he has been President. The records keep being broken:

Carter borrowed $300 billion in 4 years Broken by Obama in just 2 months
Reagan borrowed $1.8 trillion in 8 years   Broken by Obama in just 13 months
GHW Bush borrowed $1.6 trillion in 4 years Broken by Obama in 11 months
Clinton borrowed $1.2 trillion in 8 years Broken by Obama in just 8 months
All presidents combined borrowed $3 trillion in 222 years. Obama did it in 20 months
GW Bush borrowed $5 trillion in 8 years  Anyone want to take bets on Obama beating this one?

I know that all of you Obama fanbois keep blaming Bush, but here we are nearing the halfway point of Obama’s presidency, and you just have to ask: At what point does he take responsibility for the mess we are in?

Early resolution for the new year

Since it has become apparent that we are about to get us a shiny new president, and all of the front runners for both parties seem to be anti-gun, I am going to see if I can buy one gun a month from now until inauguration of the president.

So, that is 15 guns to buy between now and January of 2009. Anyone else wanna try this with me?

More vote buying

This election is going force me to choose between a douche and a turd. There is no other way to put it.

What brings on this latest diatribe? Now Hillary has decided that giving $5,000 to each parent won’t work to buy enough votes, so she plans to tax every person worth over $7 million to pay $1,000 to each person who makes less than $60K.

Read on:

Her campaign said that for every $7 million estate that gets taxed, at least 5,000 families would receive the matching funds.

That means that each person worth more than $7 million is gonna pay an average of $5 million in new taxes. How is she going to pay for this in year two, when all of those people are now worth only $2 million?

If you were worth $7 million, would you and your money stay in the country?

If you win $10million in the lottery, by the time taxes are paid, you might be able to buy another lottery ticket with what is left.

Socialist crap. Between the frontrunners and a turd sandwich, I would rather have the turd sandwich.

aaaaannnnnnd we’re back, and Rudy sucks

I thought I was gonna die, or at least it felt like it.

on with the posting:

Rudy Giuliani, the RINO. He will not be getting my vote, due mostly to the following quotes, from his speech on crime:

What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

Or even that he favors handgun registration, and that a person needs to demonstrate a NEED to own a gun. He wants to make owning a gun like owning a car. I say GREAT!! Let’s do it. He overlooks the fact that one does not need to pass a test to OWN a car, or even to drive one. One must pass a test to operate that car on public roads. I can get behind that. I can have a gun, and the only permit I need is to operate it in public. We already have that, it is called a concealed weapons permit.

A person can own any car he or she wants and can afford. From a military truck to a corvette. Let’s do that with guns. I can have anything I want, from a machine gun to a cannon.

Of course we know what he REALLY wants. Why is that? Do you think that the gangbangers will suddenly stop buying and selling drugs and lay down their guns? Or could you be trying to say that it is easier to get people to cede authority if they are unarmed?

Watch the video:

As for me, I will spend the election year buying guns and ammo. Lots and lots of guns and ammo.