I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
given.
The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
the suicide rate.
And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> such things would violate the zoning law. Is there some reason the same
> zoning law couldn't prohibit safe injection sites in residential
> neighborhoods? No? Well then.
So people shouldn't worry about such things just as long as zoning laws keep
the unpleasant aspect of it out of their neighbourhood? Now there's a self
centred, arrogant point of view if there ever was one.
At this point, I can only surmise that you're pulling my chain to get me to
respond. Can really see it as anything else.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>
> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
> consequences of your bad choices?
Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad choice?
What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> UK, and more so the Netherlands.
Yes? Cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, ecstasy, heroine? Are you
telling me they're all legal?
?
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
>>> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
>>> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>>
>>> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
>>> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>>
>>You say it is wrong, but I don't see the "correct" facts either. Surely
>>you
>>have them if you are disputing what was presented.
>
> If you're so concerned, Ed, why didn't YOU post them, either?
Because I'm neither disputing them nor saying I know them. If you say
something is wrong, you should be prepared to give the correct answer. How
else would we know if you are right or wrong? Look at the sentence above
"Just plain wrong there." That was stated as fact.
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
> reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
> feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's when
> drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we should
> be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
> There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than prison.
I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once) than to
put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> If you remove drug-related crime - particularly murder - from the
>> numbers,
>> US crime rates are unremarkable in context to other Western powers like,
>> say, Canada. The creation of a contraband market is the single most
>> important reason there is any significant degree of gunfire AND the ONLY
>> reason the thugs can afford to buy very expensive illegal weapons.
>>
>> Legalize guns and drugs. Watch crime rates fall and criminals go broke.
> As usual, you know shit, you talk shit and you're full of shit.
He's not right often, but he's right about this. Prohibition doesn't work,
it didn't work with alcohol and it hasn't worked with street drugs. All
prohibition does is create a criminal underworld to meet the demand for an
illegal product. Prohibition created The Mob (or at least gave it wealth
and power unimaginable before Prohibition) and The War On Drugs has enriched
drug cartels and street gangs that thrive on the trade in illegal street
drugs. We've spent countless billions of dollars, sent millions of people
to prison, and distorted the law to the detriment of our liberties all for a
war we cannot possibly win--why continue when the effort causes more harm
than the drugs themselves?
Just Wondering wrote:
>
> Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
> reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
> feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
> when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that
> we should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug
> users. There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation
> and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a
> civil claim.
In another post I showed the computation for Heroin use to be about $138,000
taken out of the economy in thefts and insurance rates caused by one addict.
In my state, it costs about $36,000 to house a prisoner per year. Locking up
the addicts, then, saves the community over $100,000 per incarcerated
addict.
We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison
population.
On Feb 14, 1:18=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2011 13:39:13 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> On 2/14/2011 12:29 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
> >>> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start
> >>> shooting is exactly that, a crock.
>
> >> Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
> >> situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the
> >> teeth, from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the
> >> first place_ and found it to be more true than not.
>
> ><sarcasm>
> >Too bad for those cases where it wasn't true. =A0How do you assign
> >responsibility where innocent people were hurt?
> ></sarcasm>
>
> >Yes, I am against irresponsible distribution of lethal means.
>
> <sarcasm>
> Then you should't be here. You should be out lobbying against guns,
> knives, axes, screwdrivers, clubs, rocks, razor blades, credit cards
> (can be sharpened), automobiles, and people's fists, Han.</sarcasm>
>
> Yes, I am against distribution of irresponsible thoughts. =A0Why not go
> after the bad guys; the culprits instead of the instruments, eh?
>
> --
> Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 -- Minna Thomas Antrim
I abhor violence. Period. I like it even less if it is aimed at me or
mine.
I happen to like guns. I find them fascinating pieces of machined
destruction.
I do not particularly like 'gun culture' where they're seen and used
to prop up bad arguments and used as devices to intimidate as a matter
of course.
But.. if somebody thinks they want to try a little home-invasion on my
ass, they're going to need a mop every time they take a sip of beer.
Guns are fun, shooting them is fun and I have often wondered what
would be going through some perp's mind as he stares down the barrels
of an over-and-under 12ga... maybe he wonders which hole is going to
go all lead-like and smokey?
Every man should be allowed to defend his home and family, and if that
takes a .50 cal, so be it.
Danny Vermin: I got something to stop him.
Dutch: They made it for him special. It's an eighty-eight Magnum.
Danny Vermin: It shoots through schools.
On Feb 19, 11:05=A0am, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:15fcf1f8-fe89-4efd-96f1-ef084771d814@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Neither big nor bad, Boytoy, you wouldn't have made a 3rd class traine=
e
> >> back
> >> in the old days of Usenet.
> > I was not aware that I was standing in the shadow of an experienced
> > Usenet flamer.
>
> Oh hardly, but I was around to see the really serious trolls do their wor=
k,
> so I developed a thick enough skin not to get all teary over someone flam=
ing
> me. =A0It's just pixels on a screen, to take it as personally as you are =
is,
> well, a bit odd. =A0Maybe you were teased a lot at school when you were a=
kid
> or something and you never got over that.
>
> > Now explain to me how that makes you less of an asshole.
>
> Again, you're following me around calling me names, but you insist I'm th=
e
> one who qualifies as an asshole--perhaps at some some the irony of that
> situation will occur to you.
There.. you had the last word. Happy Fuckface?
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:15fcf1f8-fe89-4efd-96f1-ef084771d814@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> Neither big nor bad, Boytoy, you wouldn't have made a 3rd class trainee
>> back
>> in the old days of Usenet.
> I was not aware that I was standing in the shadow of an experienced
> Usenet flamer.
Oh hardly, but I was around to see the really serious trolls do their work,
so I developed a thick enough skin not to get all teary over someone flaming
me. It's just pixels on a screen, to take it as personally as you are is,
well, a bit odd. Maybe you were teased a lot at school when you were a kid
or something and you never got over that.
> Now explain to me how that makes you less of an asshole.
Again, you're following me around calling me names, but you insist I'm the
one who qualifies as an asshole--perhaps at some some the irony of that
situation will occur to you.
On Feb 17, 1:44=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I've painted with a broad brush on the above. Certainly there exist
> > jurisdictions where some of the above sanctions do not apply, but nowhe=
re
> > are ALL the constraints missing.
> > It's a bad hat to be a felon.
>
> I have no problem with restoring rights to cons who have overwhelmingly
> demonstrated that they have reformed and walked the straight and narrow
> since being released. =A0But an automatic restoration of the right to own=
guns
> simply because the guy hasn't been busted for five years doesn't work for
> me. =A0I want to see pay stubs and glowing reports from his PO and lots o=
f
> character references from respected members of the community (no
> politicians)--not just a lack of recent convictions.
>
> People can clean up, I used to have a guy working for me who had been a
> full-on crack addict who had lost everything. =A0He turned it around, he =
is
> sober and hard-working and is on good terms with his ex-wife and kids, wo=
rks
> in a hospital today.
>
> But there needs to be solid evidence of rehabilitation, not just an absen=
ce
> of recent arrests. =A0People who choose to commit serious crimes have to
> justify our trusting them again, they put themselves in that situation.
All your opinions are contingent on anybody giving a rat's ass about
your views.
Nobody cares what you think, Devin. Nobody.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison
> population.
Not a solution I'd want to support because prison has it's own heavy tolls
on society and the economy, but it would certainly be one of my choices far
above that of decriminalizing drugs.
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> If you want to discuss police and prosectorial malfeasance,
>> corruption in government, and subverting the rule of law, that's a
>> whole 'nother thread.
>
> The policy in Portugal is implemented by public law. So how is that
> "police and prosecutorial malfeasance, corruption in government, and
> subverting the rule of law"?
>
> Sorry, but you really need to get your head of the DEA's ass and start
> doing some research on your own--the DEA has a vested interest in
> making us believe that drugs are an immense problem that can only be
> resolved by draconian measures implemented by the DEA busting all and
> sundry.
I knew nothing about Portugal, so I didn't comment on it. Since you
insisted, I looked it up.
EVERY drung illegal in the U.S. is likewise imposes a sanction on the
Portugese.
While up to a ten day's supply of a drug is not subject to CRIMINAL
penalties in Portugal, people who possess these drugs ARE subject to CIVIL
remedies, including fines and incarceration.
You are confusing "decriminalization" with "legalization." Illegal drugs are
still "illegal" in Portugal, though only through the civil process.
In article <[email protected]>, Josepi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Many of these killings are the gun owners own children sneaking in late at
> night.
Citation, please.
In article <[email protected]>, Josepi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is one on the millions.
>
> http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
>
> It is too late for gun controls in the USA for the next 100 years. Look to
> Brazil for an example of controls that will take 100 years to become
> effective. It's a long process once a culture gets the "shoot somebody"
> mentality. The only answer is to get gun ownership levels down and it takes
> centuries of kicking hard.
>
>
>
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> news:140220112216079295%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> Citation, please.
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Josepi
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Many of these killings are the gun owners own children sneaking in late at
> night.
>
There is nothing that I can find on that page about children sneaking
in late at night.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> Trains are no good, 'cause you can always tie the toddlers to the
> tracks. Light rail will have to go, in fact, All rail! Horses might
> not be bad, but you don't want the temptation of manure piles ...
Had you asked a resident of New York in 1900 what the city's transportation
system would be like a hundred years hence when the population had increased
ten fold, he would have followed up with two questions:
* Where are we going to get enough horses, and
* What will we do with all the horse shit?
Your suggestion would resurrect those two questions.
On Feb 18, 7:22=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Neither big nor bad, Boytoy, you wouldn't have made a 3rd class trainee b=
ack
> in the old days of Usenet. =A0
I was not aware that I was standing in the shadow of an experienced
Usenet flamer.
What a claim to fame.
Now explain to me how that makes you less of an asshole.
On Feb 18, 8:00=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > And yet here you are, after informing the world just days ago that you
> > were done with me, here you are again, and with the added comic bonus o=
f a
> > lecture on how you no longer want to have the last word.
>
> Thanks for making my point.
LOL.. Devvy is looking for respect. He wants to be admired.
Problem is, that the only way he seems to be able to elevate himself,
is by standing on somebody..IOW, he tries and tries.
NOW he's trying to pull rank by claiming to be the NON-PLUS-ULTRA
Newsgroup dawg!
How insecure can one be?
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> No, I am not. I happily agree that convicted felons and people
>> adjudicated as mentally unsound should be unable to purchase or own
>> firearms. If someone has a habit of committing assault then he's
>> probably going to get a conviction serious enough to be denied the
>> ownership of guns.
> Felons have no need for self defense? I submit that most have a GREATER
> need, considering the folks they hang around with.
Tough shit for them. They made their choice, and if they're still hanging
around with jailbirds then apparently they didn't get the message.
> As for those with a mental health issue, my view is that current law
> paints with too broad a brush. As the federal law currently stands, anyone
> involuntarily committed to a mental health facility is forever barred from
> owning a gun.
But they can appeal that, in fact federal law was recently changed to make
such appeals easier. The law can't ever be perfect, but sometimes all it
needs to be is good enough.
On Feb 15, 7:32=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think the only real legalization I would be for is if there is a way to
> determine excessive usage by an individual. =A0Something like being able =
to
> buy only with a credit card tied to a person's identity. <snicker>.
>
I'm not disagreeing with your view on this, but the legalization will
bring the prices down and the dealers can't have that now can they?
I especially refer to the 'big' dealers, the ones with their own
fleets of aircraft, pockets full of politicians and lawmakers, law-
enforcement people and all things corruptible. All you have to do is
follow history's path of the drug/opium trades from the poppy fields
of Afghanistan to the port of the old Shanghai and the subsequent wars
that have been fought over this business.
Some speculate that covert funding of special ops comes from drug
sources. Just ask Karzai's brother.
That element will always find a source of income and if it isn't
drugs, 12-year old sex slaves will do.
You can't eliminate those who profit from people's weaknesses.
Aside from the collected taxes, governments have other reasons to
allow cigarettes to be sold. Smokers die younger so the social
security pay-out is less... actuarially calculated to be much less
that the short, painful medical condition that needs to be funded.
Think about it... what better way to control social security spending
than allowing the potential recipients to die younger?
And just because some people refuse to see the true ugliness that
surrounds us, doesn't make it less so.
Steve wrote:
>
> The second? well, who the Hell cares about onesie-twosies? Or
> the crazy mom who just popped off her two kids while dad was off
> fighting one of those wars... Because it's a god-damned American
> constitutional right to own a gun!
>
Oh geezus... Why don't you rave about the deranged moms who roll their cars
into rivers with the kids strapped into the back seats? Is it a little less
convenient for you to rant about owning cars in the face of this kind of
thing?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 2/15/2011 3:16 PM, Robatoy said this:
> On Feb 15, 4:03 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I happily
>> support laws which target the criminal use of firearms, but I reject laws
>> which make law-abiding people jump through higher and higher hoops in hopes
>> that maybe some criminals might possibly perhaps hopefully be inconvenienced
>> too.
>
> Gun control laws are implemented to take away any threat from over-
> taxed rebellious people.
> It is about government controlling the masses.
I disagree. Gun control is about learning the Weaver Stance
and being able to shoot accurately with both eyes open ... oh,
wait ... nevermind...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> rape than the U.S. however, so regardless of your perception of what
> happens out there in the great big world there are millions of law-abiding
> folks who like knowing that if crime comes to their home, they have
> something other than a telephone to protect themselves with.
And maybe, just perhaps, there's millions of people who enjoy the fact that
crime and intruders coming through the door is an unlikely occurrence and
live their peaceful, everyday lives in serene content.
You seem to like to fear monger. Maybe it's the direct result of experience
or maybe you relish what others have told you. I'll never know. It's all
well and good to be prepared, but there's limits on what people think being
prepared is and each one is subjective. If I lived where you live (have
lived) I might feel the same way you do. But, I don't.
Without a doubt, you consider me naive. (there I go putting words in your
mouth again). I have my own methods of being prepared and I take different
precautions against things that might happen to me. My experiences have
taught me what's important to guard against where I live. You seem to have a
problem with that. Your prerogative. So, I'm not going to buy a gun just for
use against possible attack. If I buy a gun it's for target shooting, not
protection. I carefully lock my steel door at night and if someone wants to
break in, then I'll have to deal with that at the time. It's not happened in
my forty years of living by myself and I haven't heard of it happening to
someone living close to me either. Sure I could be additionally prepared,
but I could also be more prepared against a meteor crashing into my home and
hitting me in the head. I choose not to think very much about.
I'm done discussing this with you. Take your final volley at me and then let
it alone.
According to these stats published, USA is way out and beyond almost any
other country in the world. Canada and other gun control countries have much
lower figures including and not including suicide.
Drugs don't make gun related deaths OK, anyway. Does the right to bare arms
cause drug addiction?
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If you remove drug-related crime - particularly murder - from the numbers,
US crime rates are unremarkable in context to other Western powers like,
say, Canada. The creation of a contraband market is the single most
important reason there is any significant degree of gunfire AND the ONLY
reason the thugs can afford to buy very expensive illegal weapons.
Legalize guns and drugs. Watch crime rates fall and criminals go broke.
On Feb 15, 5:12=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and
> Red Bull.
:-)
>
> The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term Heroin
> addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy.
Dunno where you got that info, but life expectancy is far longer than
that, sometimes 40 years.
That is at 1 gram at 3-5% per day.
Still not a good life choice.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
>> Gun control laws are implemented to take away any threat from over-
> taxed rebellious people.
> It is about government controlling the masses.
> -------------------------------------
> Like we saw in Egypt?
>
> Little boys still seem to need their pacifiers when they get big so
> hand guns and assualt rifles seem to fit the bill.
>
You say that as if you think there's something wrong with the concept?
There are many women and men whose self confidence is enhanced by obtaining
a 44.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And I think we've beat the subject to death. All I did originally was
> comment about a comic strip.
So, YOU'RE that one that started all this crap. You're hereby ordered to
become addicted to several drugs, smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, put
on 300lbs of weight from eating too much and a drink a gallon of alcohol a
day.
And, when you reach the pont that it costs the establishment too much money
to keep you alive, we will make all your activies a god given right and will
then give you free drugs, free cigarettes, free food and won't send you to
jail drunk for driving over an entire family of five.
Sound good? :)
Cooking spray doesn't get people high, people get high.
LOL
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The point that is continually missed is that people who want to get high
will find a way to get high. People have been known to get high on
cooking spray so you can expect the DEA to ban that next.
DGDevin wrote:
> "Josepi" wrote in message news:2%[email protected]...
>
>> According to these stats published, USA is way out and beyond almost
>> any other country in the world. Canada and other gun control
>> countries have much lower figures including and not including
>> suicide.
>
> Brazil has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. and a murder rate
> four times higher. Meanwhile Vermont has very loose gun laws (e.g.
> concealed carry without a permit) and routinely is at the bottom of
> U.S. crime rates. Obviously things other than gun laws are behind
> violent crime rates. If you want to bring down violent crime, do
> something about education, poverty and a booming trade in street
> drugs, that way you'll actually accomplish something. But disarming
> people who are extremely unlikely to ever commit a serious crime
> isn't going to accomplish much at all.
Preach it!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]>
> That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
> dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
> dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
Fix the addicts??? What kind of asshole are you? And yeah, you deserve that
response for an ingnorant comment.
If the capability to 'Fix the addicts' was even half as easy as your
assinine comment would suggest, it would have been done already and the
dealers would be starving for new users.
Any future comments you might have go in the bit bucket despite any validity
to them.
Asshole. You're a really big fucking asshole. Bet you know it too.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> PDFTFT
Point taken. If he were at least amusing he would serve some purpose--alas,
he's not even good for that.
On Feb 18, 1:15=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OK, how about some personal experience.
>
> I smoked almost a carton a week from the time I was 18 until almost 60. =
=A0
> I did switch from unfiltered to filtered about the middle of that.
>
> Just before my 60th birthday I had a heart attack - luckily not a massive
> one. =A0When I got out of intensive care I went outside, pushing my IV
> holder, and had my last cigarette. =A0I noticed no physical withdrawal
> symptoms, just my hand having a reflex action of reaching for my shirt
> pocket every now and then. =A0That went away in a week or two.
>
> I did tell my cardiologist that I missed it and wondered if one cigar a
> month was admissible. =A0He reluctantly agreed. =A0I adhered to that regi=
men
> for 10 years. =A0When I reached 70 I unilaterally decided to let myself
> have one a week. =A0Been doing that for 4 years. =A0Surely if smoking was
> addictive to me I would have been rapidly increasing my cigar smoking
> until it was a constant thing.
>
> I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. =A0But it do=
es
> not seem to be addictive to me.
I do sense an increasing trend - you've quadrupled your smoking in
only 4 years.
Check back in periodically so we can monitor your
addic...sorry...habi...oops...relaxation? Say every 5 years for the
next 30 year. That should give us enough data to draw some meaningful
answers.
Don't think of pulling out of the study early - this is a scientific
experiment and we need your cooperation.
R
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:15:35 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:24:24 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>>@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:16:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>> wrote:
>>> >>In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
>>> >>Rob others. Meth, for example.
>>> >
>>> >But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal.
>>> >>
>>> >>Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control
>>> >>and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
>>> >
>>> >And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft
>>> >and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home
>>> >should be left alone.
>>>
>>> Doug making meth is not extremely expensive, dangerous but not
>>> expensive at all.
>>
>>Another argument for legalization. Legal, licensed, inspected meth labs
>>are less likely to burn, when they do burn they are less likely to burn
>>down the neighborhood, and the operators will have insurance to pay for
>>the damage to others caused by the fire, not to mention workmen's comp
>>for the injured workers.
>
>And maybe just maybe I can get my Pseudoephedrine back
Ditto here. I miss the hay fever meds which had pseudoephedrine in
them. The new stuff doesn't work worth a damn.
>damn meth heads. Benedryl sucks!!!!
Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so
depressed I considered suicide. Scared the shit out of me. 24 hours
later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit
me.
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer
On Feb 14, 9:17=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/13/2011 11:37 PM, Steve B said this:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't ag=
ree
> >> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts=
"
> >> given.
>
> >> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
> >> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt al=
l
> >> of them occurred at home. =A0Just plain wrong there.
>
> >> Over half, however, were suicides. =A0Banning guns won't do much to re=
duce
> >> the suicide rate.
>
> >> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
> >> other? =A0The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>
> >> But enough soapbox. =A0What I really object to is the seemingly casual
> >> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>
> >> --
> >> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> > It is very easy to find statistics to support any conclusion.
>
> > -Me-
>
> .... and 87.983% of people polled agree...
>
FOX News would have rounded that up to 88% and MSNBC would have
rounded that down to 70%.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
>> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
Civil litigitation. RIGHT! There's a solution. The US is one of, if not
actually being the most litigious country this world has ever seen. Add onto
that the fact that the drug user might not have any money to sue him for.
Pile on that the fact that some of these claims fail, take years to complete
and don't really pay fully for all the expenses that someone so injured will
experience.
> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
> than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
NOT WELL SAID. Shortsighted and really ignorant at the very best. Many, many
injuries requiring rehab are a LIFE LONG condition. Fewer that you imagine
get back to being as healthy or as fully fit as they were. And most
definitely, yes, I have extensive experience in this area.
For woodworkers who I'd say were generally considered to be creative,
inventive and innovative, an awful lot of you are apparently delusional and
shortsighted to the extreme. But hell, why should I be surprised? It's just
par for the course when it comes to humanity.
On Feb 19, 4:14=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0I can think of a couple of friends who kicked addictions like
> drinking for a decade or more and then were drawn back into that
> self-destructive spiral, so it sure looks to me like for some people it
> isn't just a matter of willpower.
Lemme guess.... they were hanging with you at that time?
On 2/15/2011 1:16 PM, Upscale said this:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Yes. It was- and is a lovely place. Like all big cities, it has some
>> issues. So what? There are ghettos in L.A., crime in New York,
>> and community organizers in Chicago. We don't define these cities
>> by such pestilence, we look at the city as a whole. Amsterdam
>> deserves the same.
>
> You're full of so much bullshit, it's stifling. Did you read my comment
> about safe injection sites? Would you feel perfectly complacent if one was
> formed in the building next to where you lived? Would you be perfectly happy
> with the drop in resale value of your house because one opened up close to
> your where you lived? No sane person would and your suggestion above that
> it's just par for the course is nothing but lip service to support your
> inane arguments.
>
>> I do not indulge in recreational drugs and I don't advocate it,
>> but I also do not wish to divert the limited resources of the
>> society from stopping other people from doing so.
>
> Just as long as it doesn't happen where you live eh? Bullshit Daneliuk,
> business as usual with your crap.
>
>
There's a difference between something being legal and being able to do it
wherever you want. Factories are legal, but zoning laws exist to prevent the
kinds of problems you cite by limiting what areas are allowed to construct
such industrial buildings. So, for example, one could have legal drug
use, but restrict it to areas zone for such things.
But, no, you're right. It's much better to spend billions locking up
people - particularly people of color or people that are poor - isn't it?
Then again, I have to remember that you're a huge advocate for having
government tell the citizen what to do (instead of the other way around).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On 2/15/2011 12:52 PM, Upscale said this:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> guns are very good at stopping. I (later) grew up in a small town
>> where pretty much EVERYONE had guns (I had semiauto pistols as a teen).
>> That kind of extreme violence was almost unheard of.
>
> BULLSHIT! You must be pretty damned old then, were living in an extremely
> remote northern location or are a native American. I'm 57 now and I bought
> my first gun, a Browning Challenger when I was 18. I had to belong to a
> registered gun club (Sharron Gun Club in this case) where I was a charter
> member when they were looking to properly fund the club's activities. In
> addition, I had to go through a training course and had to be fully licensed
> with a transport permit as well as registered with the Police.
I guess I will be more specific so you don't have yet another verbal aneurysm:
I lived in Canada for only a few years on- and off. The town I lived
in that had wide availability of weapons was not in Canada. Feel better?
BTW, in that town, I NEVER had to have a slip of paperwork or any record
kept - as best as I can recall - for any weapon I owned. The only time
there was an issue was when Mom had to buy me ammo because I wasn't 18 yet,
and that didn't require any registration just proof of adult status.
Crime? Some petty stuff, drunks, that sort of thing. VIOLENT crime? None
of any substance I can recall. In a town of 5000 with the 2nd largest fishery
in the US (so the population got much larger during fishing season) I cannot
recall a single instance of murder or violent home invasion.
To once again invoke Heinlein: A Well Armed Society Is A Polite Society
>
> I don't believe your crap for one second. I've caught you in lies previously
> and now you've been caught again.
You've never remotely "caught me in a lie". You've merely assumed things
that we not true (as here), invented a strawman case, and the foamed mightily.
Your manners still need considerable work BTW...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On 2/15/2011 3:30 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You've never remotely "caught me in a lie". You've merely assumed things
>> that we not true (as here), invented a strawman case, and the foamed
>> mightily.
>> Your manners still need considerable work BTW...
>
> You are a liar and a experienced one too. When we first started our
> tet-a-tet several year ago, you accused me personally of being a thief for
> accepting publicly funded medical support. It was only after I called you on
> it that you modified your position by saying that you were against the
> entire public medical system as stealing.
>
> Among all my faults, short or incomplete memory is not one of them. Right
> from the beginning, you've been a liar and continue to do so.
>
>
>
You certainly defend theft by force which makes you the moral equivalent
of the thief doing the work. In fact, as I recall, you claim it is a
moral good for the government to take from some and give to others - presumably
because you're usually on the receiving end of that deal.
I don't think you're a thief and I never have: You don't have the skills and/or
courage to do your own stealing - you outsource it like so many other people.
On 2/18/2011 3:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>
>
> "HeyBub" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> Rehabilitation of the offender is certainly one worthy goal. But restoring his rights, in the mind of some, flies in the face of another goal: deterrence.
>
>> If the would-be goblin thinks the worst that can happen is to (eventually?) return to his current state, that there is no long-term consequence, he might be persuaded to wear white before Memorial Day or some other affront to the sensibilities of normal folk.
>
> If an ex-con has no possible way of working his way back to respectability then surely a powerful motivation for reform is being taken away. We're supposed to love the repentant sinner, remember?
>
We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a republic. Loving someone
has nothing to do, one- way or the other - with public policy.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On 2/18/2011 3:41 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2011 3:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Rehabilitation of the offender is certainly one worthy goal. But restoring
>> his rights, in the mind of some, flies in the face of another goal:
>> deterrence.
>>>
>>>> If the would-be goblin thinks the worst that can happen is to (eventually?)
>> return to his current state, that there is no long-term consequence, he might
>> be persuaded to wear white before Memorial Day or some other affront to the
>> sensibilities of normal folk.
>>>
>>> If an ex-con has no possible way of working his way back to respectability
>> then surely a powerful motivation for reform is being taken away. We're
>> supposed to love the repentant sinner, remember?
>>>
>>
>> We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a republic. Loving someone
>> has nothing to do, one- way or the other - with public policy.
>>
> Well, no, but his point about removing a powerful motivation for reform is
> well taken.
The rehabilitation back into society of felons, particularly, is just
about last on the list of things I care about. There are far too many
other people whose problems are not self-inflicted that deserve our
compassion. As far as I am concerned, felons - particularly repeat
offenders - should simply be stripped of their citizenship and sent
off to a penal colony at the end of the Aleutians for the rest of
their days - or, perhaps sent to Madison WI with the rest of the
lunatics...
It is the job of government neither to punish nor rehabilitate. It is
the job of government to minimize the risk and/or damage to the rest
of us posed by felons and would-be felons.
Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose
>> control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
>
> And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail,
> because theft
> and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at
> home
> should be left alone.
Nope. In those countries where our illicit drugs are legal, and even handed
out by the government, there has been no discernable drop in the number of
folks who obtain their drugs illegally. The only result of legal drugs is an
increased number of addicts.
How much do illegal drugs cost society?
A Heroin addict will "shoot" one "paper" of Horse per day (if he can get
it). A "paper" is 1 gram of 5% Heroin and costs about $100 on the street.
Assuming the addict is not a female (who can earn the $100 by tricking) and
assuming the addict does not have a job that leaves $100 per day in
discretionary spending, your addict has to steal. Armed robbers don't last
long, so, in the main, the thief is a burglar or car thief.
In order to net the $100, the thief has to steal something worth about four
times that amount, or $400 (hey, fences have to feed their families too!).
So, then, $400/day x 365 days per year is $146,000 taken out of the economy
for each Heroin addict in the wild.
How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000 (out
of six million). That's over $7 billion in loss or increased insurance rates
just for Heroin. Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and
Red Bull.
The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term Heroin
addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>You ever been addicted?
> My wife was, to cigarettes. She quit. She made the choice to quit. If
> there
> truly was "no choice" then no one would ever be able to break an
> addiction.
Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more than a
vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then you might
just possibly be a little more understanding. In the end, your attitude and
comments mean that you're too nonchalant and dismissive to really give a
damn for the difficulties that others face.
"Dr. Deb" wrote:
> Larry, if you haven't noticed those on the Left are
> extremely light on truth.
>
> That being the case, you should not be surprised. Its
> like the figures being given out about how many guns in
> hands of the gangs in Mexico come from the US. The
> figure is wholly bogus, but it fits the agenda so they
> went with it.
-----------------------
Poor baby.
Lew
On 2011-02-13 20:05:46 -0500, Larry <[email protected]> said:
> The number of firearms continues to increase, concealed carry continues
> to rise, while the number of firearm related deaths decreases. All
> those stories about blood in the streets and showdown at the OK Corral
> seem to have been lies.
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/4dudfaj
>
> Interesting article with lots of good statistics. Haven't had time to
> read the whole thing but they seem to be attempting to use this for
> more anti-gun legislation while showing the gun related deaths dropping
> every year.
>
> Larry
Gentlemen, you've missed the forest for the trees. The point of the
Doonesbury strip was not so much about gun control as political
manipulation.
A poorly-identified -- yet alien -- enemy attacked the US, causing
3,700 deaths. Result: ten years of panic, loss of our valued liberties,
and a chance to get a hand-job the next time you fly.
In the interveneing years, we've managed to kill [a hotly-debated
number ranging up to 73 times more] of our own countrymen with weapons
somewhat less senational than jet airliners.
Now, why the fuck have we reacted (or over-reacted) to the first
situation, and been so blasé about the second?
Perhaps the first was an expedient excuse to ram through a certain
politcal agenda -- two wars have lined someone's pockets, though not
mine. The second? well, who the Hell cares about onesie-twosies? Or the
crazy mom who just popped off her two kids while dad was off fighting
one of those wars... Because it's a god-damned American constitutional
right to own a gun!
So is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that's the trump
suite, patriot.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:45:35 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so
>> depressed I considered suicide. Scared the shit out of me. 24 hours
>> later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit
>> me.
>>
>Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some of
>the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after
>having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to
>sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't
>remember a thing.
>
The current allergy med's like Clartin ect. put me into the beginning
of anaphylactic shock. Now that just not what an allergy medince
should do, but if you read the side effects that information is in
there.
Mark
On 2011-02-13 22:42:32 -0500, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> said:
> If you want to bring down violent crime, do something about education,
> poverty and a booming trade in street drugs, that way you'll actually
> accomplish something. But disarming people who are extremely unlikely
> to ever commit a serious crime isn't going to accomplish much at all.
Curiously, I agree with this. Also, Vermonters seem to be pretty
sensible people (without a lot of big cities).
On 2011-02-13 22:48:33 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]> said:
> As usual, you know shit, you talk shit and you're full of shit.
If there's one thing that's definitely NOT upscale, it's a knowledge of shit.
On 2/13/2011 10:37 PM, Steve B wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
>> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
>> given.
>>
>> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
>> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
>> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>>
>> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
>> the suicide rate.
>>
>> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
>> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>>
>> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
>> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> It is very easy to find statistics to support any conclusion.
>
Over 49.9 percent of all people are below average. Since I'm above
average (take my word for it), does that mean you're below?
On 2/14/2011 8:20 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>> so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would
>> be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs.
>
> On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at
> least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place
> is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose
> actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause
> demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for
> jailing recreational drug users?
Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we
should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
On 2/15/2011 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The second? well, who the Hell cares about onesie-twosies? Or
>>> the crazy mom who just popped off her two kids while dad was off
>>> fighting one of those wars... Because it's a god-damned American
>>> constitutional right to own a gun!
>>>
>>
>> Oh geezus... Why don't you rave about the deranged moms who roll their
>> cars into rivers with the kids strapped into the back seats? Is it a
>> little less convenient for you to rant about owning cars in the face
>> of this kind of thing?
>>
>
>
> Yarbut if she had to ride a bus it wouldn't have happened ...
>
> Trains are no good, 'cause you can always tie the toddlers to the
> tracks. Light rail will have to go, in fact, All rail! Horses might not
> be bad, but you don't want the temptation of manure piles ...
>
I expect that, statistically, people were more likely to be injured by
horses throwing them, or kicking them, etc. than they now are to be
injured in vehicle accidents.
On 2/14/2011 11:17 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to prison, the
>> huge distortions of our laws all to combat street drugs can't actually do
>> what they are supposed to do, why are we still doing it, why didn't the
>> lesson of the failure of Prohibition sink in?
>
> I only have one response to your idea that drugs, guns, whatever should be
> legalized and controlled.
>
> Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And that's
> despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated and the money
> spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover what will happen to
> society if we go the route of legalizing it all and taxing it or whatever.
> You think you know, but that's just your opinion. There's the real
> possibility is that it could lead to terrible repercussions. Nobody who
> tries a habit forming drug wants to become an addict. Yet, there are new
> addicts all the time. Pray tell, what will happen when those drugs become
> legal and many more people try them out just for recreation.
>
> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of some
> developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all. Until you
> can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble conjecture and nothing
> else. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the society I live in
> being the first to attempt it.
>
>
What about alcohol addiction? Caffeine addiction? Refined sugar
addiction? Tobacco addiction? (Completely legal) prescription drug
addiction?
On 02/15/2011 04:16 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail,
>>> because theft
>>> and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at
>>> home
>>> should be left alone.
>
>> Nope. In those countries where our illicit drugs are legal, and even
>> handed out by the government, there has been no discernable drop in
>> the number of folks who obtain their drugs illegally. The only result
>> of legal drugs is an increased number of addicts.
>
> This is where you post links to credible sources that make us all say by
> golly Heybub is right, for once.
>
>> How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000
>> (out of six million). That's over $7 billion in loss or increased
>> insurance rates just for Heroin. Then there's crack, Marijuana,
>> Cocaine, speed, meth, and Red Bull.
>
> So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin,
> eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven
> billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that?
Here's a good one, Arizona just passed a "medical marijuana" bill. The
tax they propose isn't going to deter any illegal activity:
<http://www.opposingviews.com/i/arizona-lawmakers-want-300-medical-marijuana-tax>
> * What will we do with all the horse shit?
>
> Well, in this day and age, methane gas is a viable business
> opportunity.
------------------------------------------
SFWIW
The State of Ohio has built an evaluation anaerobic digester waste
water treatment system at the agricultural experiment station in
Wooster, Ohio. (About $5M)
As long as animal waste is an integral part of the food growing
system, might as well use the existing technology that predates the
Romans to make the process more efficient.
There is a ready market for the methane and the fertilizer generated.
Lew
"Robatoy" wrote:
>Gun control laws are implemented to take away any threat from over-
taxed rebellious people.
It is about government controlling the masses.
-------------------------------------
Like we saw in Egypt?
Little boys still seem to need their pacifiers when they get big so
hand guns and assualt rifles seem to fit the bill.
Lew
On 02/15/2011 05:35 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> would quit responding), he didn't need a remote location. All he had to
>> do was grow up in the South. I did. And I walked into a store and
>> bought a .38 revolver when I was 13 or 14. Nobody thought there was
>> anything wrong with that. Luckily I never had to use it.
>
> Read daneliuk's thread a little closer Larry. When he first said it, he
> suggested that he was living in Canada when he had all this easy access to
> firearms. That's what I called bullshit on. After I did, he corrected the
> statement to say he was actually living in the US when he had the firearms.
> You see, Timshit likes to play these little word games and when called on
> it, he always comes up with a 'correction'. It's his way of lying and then
> trying to pull his butt out of the line of fire.
>
>
You must have mis-understood - I didn't get the idea he was talking
about Canada or the US as he has stated in the past that he came from
across the pond somewhere? He certainly didn't imply that Canada was
what he was talking about.
On 2/15/2011 1:21 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
>>> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
>
> Civil litigitation. RIGHT! There's a solution. The US is one of, if not
> actually being the most litigious country this world has ever seen. Add onto
> that the fact that the drug user might not have any money to sue him for.
> Pile on that the fact that some of these claims fail, take years to complete
> and don't really pay fully for all the expenses that someone so injured will
> experience.
Your comments are out of context. The alternatives are keeping the
status quo of criminalization and imprisonment at taxpayer expense, or
outright legalization with NO civil remedy. Please explain why you
think using civil law is inferior to both the criminal law and no
restrictions at all.
>> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
>> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
>> than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
>
> NOT WELL SAID. Shortsighted and really ignorant at the very best. Many, many
> injuries requiring rehab are a LIFE LONG condition. Fewer that you imagine
> get back to being as healthy or as fully fit as they were. And most
> definitely, yes, I have extensive experience in this area.
>
> For woodworkers who I'd say were generally considered to be creative,
> inventive and innovative, an awful lot of you are apparently delusional and
> shortsighted to the extreme. But hell, why should I be surprised? It's just
> par for the course when it comes to humanity.
>
So you think people whose point of view differs from you are
shortsighted, ignorant and delusional? That says not so much about
them, but a whole lot about you.
On 2/15/2011 12:57 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "DGDevin"<[email protected]>
>> massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all
>> have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the
>> process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself
>> senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if
>> he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is
>> entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people
>> have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose
>> to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves
>> unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so.
>
> And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks
> about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world
> doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've
> having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or
> just in everyday living.
>
> Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
> felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the
> downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How
> many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You
> might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been
> a member of one of those families so afflicted.
>
> Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the
> occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a
> downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive
> drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and
> benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the
> very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without
> exception.
>
Undoubtedly there would be repercussions. But there are already
repercussions from the existing illegal drug trade. The question is,
which set of repercussions is worse?
On 02/17/2011 01:58 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess
>>>>>> in the Netherlands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin,
>>>>>> etc.) are also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The
>>>>>> Netherlands.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on in
>>>>> Portugal while you're about it.
>>>>
>>>> I checked before I posted. Visit the chart at:
>>>> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm
>>>>
>>>> The Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.S. are signatories to the United
>>>> Nations Single Convention Treaty on drugs. The treaty provides that
>>>> signatories provide criminal penalties for the use, manufacture,
>>>> sale, transport, blah-blah-blah, listed drugs.
>>>>
>>>> Inasmuch as our constitution says that "This constitution and
>>>> treaties made pursuant thereto shall be the supreme law of the
>>>> land," we cannot make ANY proscribed drug legal without abrogating
>>>> the treaty. Same with the Dutch and Portugese.
>>>
>>> Do some more research.
>>
>> You are the one who asserted that it is not illegal to buy or use drugs in
>> the Netherlands. I disputed that, sort of. I showed you that it is illegal
>> in The Netherlands to "possess" virtually all drugs. By buying or using
>> drugs, one is "possessing" them, therefore both of those conditions are
>> illegal.
>>
>> It is now up to you to validate your claim.
>
> Any ggogleing of "Netherlands Drug Policy" will show that oan walk into
> a restaurant in the Netherlands and buy drugs off a menu.
>
> Technically, they are unlawful however the official policy is that the
> law is not enforced. The same is true in Portugal. If you want to call
> something done in accordance with official government policy "illicit"
> go right ahead.
>
>
The same situation with our current immigration "policy" versus our
immigration laws.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:24:24 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, markem618
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:16:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>> wrote:
>> >>In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
>> >>Rob others. Meth, for example.
>> >
>> >But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal.
>> >>
>> >>Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control
>> >>and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
>> >
>> >And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft
>> >and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home
>> >should be left alone.
>>
>> Doug making meth is not extremely expensive, dangerous but not
>> expensive at all.
>
>Another argument for legalization. Legal, licensed, inspected meth labs
>are less likely to burn, when they do burn they are less likely to burn
>down the neighborhood, and the operators will have insurance to pay for
>the damage to others caused by the fire, not to mention workmen's comp
>for the injured workers.
And maybe just maybe I can get my Pseudoephedrine back damn meth
heads. Benedryl sucks!!!!
Mark
You need to discuss more gracefully. Hurt to have you ass kicked?
Your ad hominem attacks only exemplify your maturity levels here.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
We have discovered you just make up silly shit to post so as not to be left
out of the conversation
"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
We have discovered that carrying guns leads to more crime and drug usage.
.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:41:50 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/14/2011 12:29 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
>> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start shooting is
>> exactly that, a crock.
>
>Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
>situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the
>teeth, from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the first
>place_ and found it to be more true than not.
Methinks Heinlein got it right when he said "An armed society is a
polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts
with his life."
--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim
On 2/17/2011 12:44 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> I've painted with a broad brush on the above. Certainly there exist
>> jurisdictions where some of the above sanctions do not apply, but
>> nowhere are ALL the constraints missing.
>
>> It's a bad hat to be a felon.
>
> I have no problem with restoring rights to cons who have
> overwhelmingly demonstrated that they have reformed and walked the
> straight and narrow since being released. But an automatic
> restoration of the right to own guns simply because the guy hasn't
> been busted for five years doesn't work for me. I want to see pay
> stubs and glowing reports from his PO and lots of character
> references from respected members of the community (no
> politicians)--not just a lack of recent convictions.
>
> People can clean up, I used to have a guy working for me who had
> been a full-on crack addict who had lost everything. He turned it
> around, he is sober and hard-working and is on good terms with his
> ex-wife and kids, works in a hospital today.
>
> But there needs to be solid evidence of rehabilitation, not just an
> absence of recent arrests. People who choose to commit serious
> crimes have to justify our trusting them again, they put themselves
> in that situation.
>
+1
On Feb 17, 3:30=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Upscale" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Go fuck yourself.
>
> Aren't you the guy who was out of this thread several posts back?
>
> > A simple response is adequate for you since you don't have the brain po=
wer
> > to deal with anything more complex.
>
> The rest of the world is all idiots, you're the only smart guy here. =A0G=
ot
> it.
And here *I* thought YOU, Devvy, were the only smart guy here. You
sure try awful hard to come out 'on top'..even 'on top' of useless
arguments.
Idiot.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now you would probably argue that the money going to his dealer is put
> BACK into the community when the dealer blings up his teeth, but this sort
> of "broken window" economics, so beloved by Keynesians and Democrats, is a
> flaw of gigantic proportions.
You have to watch out for those do-gooder Democrats like that leading
proponent of the Broken Window Theory, Rudy Giuliani.
"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You need to discuss more gracefully. Hurt to have you ass kicked?
Please point to the occasion on which you have kicked my ass or that of
anyone else.
<crickets>
> Your ad hominem attacks only exemplify your maturity levels here.
Some people leave the world with no option, and your practice of making
dubious statements totally unsupported by any sort of documentation
naturally leads the world to dismiss you as a low-budget troll. Sorry about
that, but that's the quality of work you're known for.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:%%[email protected]...
>> such things would violate the zoning law. Is there some reason the same
>> zoning law couldn't prohibit safe injection sites in residential
>> neighborhoods? No? Well then.
> So people shouldn't worry about such things just as long as zoning laws
> keep the unpleasant aspect of it out of their neighbourhood? Now there's a
> self centred, arrogant point of view if there ever was one.
I'm not the one who raised the specter of how unpleasant it would be to have
a shooting gallery next door, that was you, remember? If having such a
facility next door being a unpleasant situation wasn't what you really
meant, why did you write it like that?
> At this point, I can only surmise that you're pulling my chain to get me
> to respond. Can really see it as anything else.
I understand, an inability to consider points of view you disagree with is a
common condition, one we all suffer from at times. Your case seems
particularly severe however. In another post you held up the fairly low
crime rate in Toronto as more persuasive to you than the much higher rates
of crime in other places, apparently you think someone in Detroit who
doesn't want to be robbed and killed in his own home should take comfort in
your relative safely and decide he doesn't need a gun. Other people don't
have that luxury, Upscale, they have to live in their world, not yours.
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
>> dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
>> dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
> If there is no supply ...
If there is a profitable demand, there will be a supply.
> Say, whatever happened to stopping the flow from Afghanistan. Taliban was
> better at that.
The Taliban banned cultivation and shut off the flow of Afghan opium/heroin
base temporarily to sell off a backlog of supply and drive up prices. But
they never stopped the traffic and continued to tax it. They were most
serious about stopping opium production only in areas where their opposition
was strong, but opium/heroin continues to be a major source of revenue for
the Taliban.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> rape than the U.S. however, so regardless of your perception of what
>> happens out there in the great big world there are millions of
>> law-abiding folks who like knowing that if crime comes to their home,
>> they have something other than a telephone to protect themselves with.
> And maybe, just perhaps, there's millions of people who enjoy the fact
> that crime and intruders coming through the door is an unlikely occurrence
> and live their peaceful, everyday lives in serene content.
At some level do you understand that a counter-argument actually has to have
meaning that relates to what the other person said, that it isn't just an
exercise in typing?
You refuse to consider that many millions of people live in circumstances
far removed from your safe little enclave, that for them the ability to
defend their families in their own homes is not some academic concept, it's
the real world. Nobody is demanding that you own a firearm, you are
absolutely entitled to be unarmed, and if the left-wing of your political
class gets its way the matter won't be left up to your discretion.
But elsewhere in the world people can and do defend themselves with
guns--you don't have to like it, but it happens every day. Happily they
don't need your approval.
> I'm done discussing this with you. Take your final volley at me and then
> let it alone.
LOL, you poor thing, you've flailed around like a high school student
through this whole thread, and now you want bail out. No sweat, but the
grownups will keep talking. We'll call for dinner sonny, don't forget to
wash your hands.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot
>>would
>>be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs.
> On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing
> at
> least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first
> place
> is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose
> actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause
> demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there
> for
> jailing recreational drug users?
I think recreational drug use can and does cause harm to society, there are
no harmless recreational drugs including the one that has been legal and
massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all have
the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the process.
So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself senseless
every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if he's beating
the wife and kids or something like that, then society is entitled to
intervene. But aside from things like that I think people have the right to
smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose to consume, it is
not the job of government to save us from ourselves unless there is a
compelling public interest in doing so.
"rest of us"?
Time to give the subject a rest. tempers flare and for what? It's a strongly
biased, old argument, opinion subject and nobody will convince anybody else
to change their brainwashed culture, for or agin' guns.
Luckily most of the government people, telling YOU what to do, see my
side...LOL
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Okay tiger, you go on telling yourself how devastating your rhetorical
attack is. The rest of us will smile and perhaps roll our eyes a bit.
On Feb 19, 3:16=A0am, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =A0Some, like anything else, don't get addicted but those are in the mino=
rity.
> I smoked for many years then switched to Copenhagen for about ten years.
> Chewed at work and always found those that walked around spitting in a ca=
n
> disgusting. I swallowed it. When I quit, I had serious withdrawal symptom=
s.
I'm experiencing a serious gag reflex just thinking about swallowing
chew/snuff fluid.
R
On Feb 18, 3:30=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Why would anyone by upset to be called names by an angry imbecile?
I'm not upset about you calling me names. Stop giving yourself so much
credit!
> > I was waiting for a tray of stuffed peppers to bake, so I had a little
> > time to waste.
> > So I did a little Googling and lo and behold DGDevin is an asshole in
> > LOTS of other newsgroups too.
>
> English translation: your nose is so out of joint that you did a search o=
n
> me
That translation of yours is incorrect. Making up stuff again, eh?
Uhhmm, nope. I googled other news groups because I was curious to find
out if it was normal for you to get so upset.
Obviously, you get all excited if anybody talks to you. You do this
all the time. Streeeetching out discussions just to feel wanted.
Unfortunately, you are just not interesting enough for me to do any
further searches.
Devvy, if lowly lill' ol' me gets you all this excited, you must live
a very boring life.
You are correct about one thing. You did demonstrate in a previous
exchange how screwed up you are, I just butted in to see if your
condition was chronic.
It seems to be.
Bottom line? I'm bored with you. How about something creative?
Nighty night! Don't stay up too long thinking of ways to get to this
Big Bad Robatoy... because regardless of what gurgles out of your
limited mind, I will always consider that it is just Devvy spouting
off again.
And now I fart in your general direction!
On 2/13/2011 11:37 PM, Steve B said this:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
>> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
>> given.
>>
>> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
>> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
>> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>>
>> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
>> the suicide rate.
>>
>> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
>> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>>
>> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
>> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> It is very easy to find statistics to support any conclusion.
>
> -Me-
>
>
.... and 87.983% of people polled agree...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:12 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and
>> Red Bull.
>
> :-)
>
>>
>> The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term
>> Heroin addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy.
>
> Dunno where you got that info, but life expectancy is far longer than
> that, sometimes 40 years.
> That is at 1 gram at 3-5% per day.
> Still not a good life choice.
I grant some may keep going for 40 years. These few are offset, however, by
those who die during their first use. I guess it all averages out to three
years.
I got the information from a week-long class for law enforcement officers
conducted by the (then) Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Your manners still need considerable work BTW...
I have my own friends and acquaintences with whom I'm perfectly polite and
congenial. With flaky assholes like you, I have no compunctions about being
as crude and insulting as possible because you deserve no less. You use your
assumed mastery of the English language as a weapon to twist and distort
reality to your view of things. And, you do it here, in rec.woodworking
where in all your years of presence, you have yet to contribute one shred of
woodworking knowledge or experience. Basically, you're a troll of the worst
sort masquerading under the guise of some sort of distorted, selfish and
twisted logic. It's your only purpose here, so I take pleasure in shutting
you down at my discression.
On Feb 17, 6:55=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:e8501258-5000-4f84-a4c4-8449c0e8d0ea@x21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So in your twisted mind, if one reads one of your posts it
> > automatically means the reader cares?
>
> When somebody whose fingers I stepped on recently is still so pissed off
> that he follows me around in threads he otherwise hasn't participated in
> just to repeatedly hump my ankle, I think I'm justified in finding that
> amusing. =A0And you are amusing, Robotboy, because you take such silly sh=
it so
> seriously, you're so obviously out for petty revenge--how could that not =
be
> worth a laugh?
>
> Hey, knock yourself out, better men than you have called me names and I'm
> still alive and kicking.
Me taking YOU seriously?
Don't flatter yourself... there's that ego again.
On Feb 17, 9:16=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>
> > Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're
> > looking at a one-time expense. =A0For the same money you get to lock up
> > someone for just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the
> > odds of them returning to prison are high. =A0So which approach seems
> > like a better use of the taxpayer's dollar? =A0Half of all federal
> > prison inmates are there for drug offenses, and prisons cost the
> > American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I think exploring
> > alternatives is at least worth trying.
Put 'em to work. They earn money while in jail, and it's paid out
when they're released if there have been no problems. Some of the
money goes directly to their family if the family is on support. If
there's a victim, a percentage, based on the severity of the crime,
goes to the victim.
> Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
> taxpayer money in reduced crime.
And every man is an island, right? Who's supporting the
incarcerated's family while they're in the pokey? Oh, right - you and
me.
You are a Jedi Master at cherry picking data and ignoring variables.
R
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> If you remove drug-related crime - particularly murder - from the numbers,
> US crime rates are unremarkable in context to other Western powers like,
> say, Canada. The creation of a contraband market is the single most
> important reason there is any significant degree of gunfire AND the ONLY
> reason the thugs can afford to buy very expensive illegal weapons.
>
> Legalize guns and drugs. Watch crime rates fall and criminals go broke.
As usual, you know shit, you talk shit and you're full of shit.
On 2/13/2011 11:37 PM, Steve B said this:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
>> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
>> given.
>>
>> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
>> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
>> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>>
>> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
>> the suicide rate.
>>
>> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
>> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>>
>> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
>> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>>
>> --
>> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
>
> It is very easy to find statistics to support any conclusion.
>
> -Me-
>
>
I forgot, we must also be quick to Save The Children:
http://www.allmax.com/MILT/
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On 2/15/2011 2:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The second? well, who the Hell cares about onesie-twosies? Or
>>> the crazy mom who just popped off her two kids while dad was off
>>> fighting one of those wars... Because it's a god-damned American
>>> constitutional right to own a gun!
>>>
>>
>> Oh geezus... Why don't you rave about the deranged moms who roll their cars into rivers with the kids strapped into the back seats? Is it a little less convenient for you to rant about owning cars in the face of this kind of thing?
>>
>
>
> Yarbut if she had to ride a bus it wouldn't have happened ...
>
> Trains are no good, 'cause you can always tie the toddlers to the tracks. Light rail will have to go, in fact, All rail! Horses might not be bad, but you don't want the temptation of manure piles ...
>
The best move is to simply harness up the little darlings and have them
pull you in a carriage. They remain safe and you get a free ride.
On Feb 17, 1:31=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Documentation please,
>
> Cite?
Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.
On 2/15/2011 10:43 AM, chaniarts said this:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On 2/14/2011 11:17 PM, Upscale wrote:
>>>> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to
>>>>> prison, the huge distortions of our laws all to combat street
>>>>> drugs can't actually do what they are supposed to do, why are we
>>>>> still doing it, why didn't the lesson of the failure of
>>>>> Prohibition sink in?
>>>>
>>>> I only have one response to your idea that drugs, guns, whatever
>>>> should be legalized and controlled.
>>>>
>>>> Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And
>>>> that's despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated
>>>> and the money spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover
>>>> what will happen to society if we go the route of legalizing it all
>>>> and taxing it or whatever. You think you know, but that's just your
>>>> opinion. There's the real possibility is that it could lead to
>>>> terrible repercussions. Nobody who tries a habit forming drug wants
>>>> to become an addict. Yet, there are new addicts all the time. Pray
>>>> tell, what will happen when those drugs become legal and many more
>>>> people try them out just for recreation.
>>>>
>>>> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of
>>>> some developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it
>>>> all. Until you can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble
>>>> conjecture and nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit
>>>> interested in the society I live in being the first to attempt it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What about alcohol addiction? Caffeine addiction? Refined sugar
>>> addiction? Tobacco addiction? (Completely legal) prescription drug
>>> addiction?
>>
>> Actually he's right, we don't know what will happen. But we don't
>> know what will happen with most social programs. Didn't stop us from
>> implementing them.
>>
>> In the US drugs were completely legal prior to 1906. We had a
>> functioning, more or less civil society then. Why would we not have
>> one that is at least as well functioning and more or less civil now?
>
> life, people, morals, and general ethics of society's lessened personal
> responsiblity beliefs have changed to the detriment. in the general case, of
> course.
>
>
When morality and "doing good" is outsourced to the State, it is the
natural instinct of the individual to say, "It's not my personal
responsibility"." When the State itself is build on unethical
behavior, this simply worsens things.
Also, I think you'll have a hard time making the case that things are so
much worse today. Even a casual reading of history makes it pretty clear
that evil in many forms has always been with us.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You appear to believe that people who disagree with you are therefore by
> definition stupid--until you correct this basic error you'll have a
> problem.
And just possibly, my opinions on this matter are correct. By definition,
that would make you pretty stupid, wouldn't it? You see, it works both ways.
:)
On 14 Feb 2011 13:39:13 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 2/14/2011 12:29 AM, Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start
>>> shooting is exactly that, a crock.
>>
>> Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
>> situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the
>> teeth, from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the
>> first place_ and found it to be more true than not.
>
><sarcasm>
>Too bad for those cases where it wasn't true. How do you assign
>responsibility where innocent people were hurt?
></sarcasm>
>
>Yes, I am against irresponsible distribution of lethal means.
<sarcasm>
Then you should't be here. You should be out lobbying against guns,
knives, axes, screwdrivers, clubs, rocks, razor blades, credit cards
(can be sharpened), automobiles, and people's fists, Han.</sarcasm>
Yes, I am against distribution of irresponsible thoughts. Why not go
after the bad guys; the culprits instead of the instruments, eh?
--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim
On Feb 18, 10:56=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You seem to be getting hung up on minor technicalities ........
Pot, kettle.....
Upscale wrote:
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but innocent bystanders have been killed
>> or injured in fist fights.
>
> Of course it has, but it's an unlikely occurrence.
Okay, sorry to bust your bubble, a case can be made that these "innocent
bystanders" are not entirely "innocent." If they go to a bar having a
reputation of out-of-control patrons, some liability attaches to their
choice. On the other hand, you almost never hear of a gunfight at a church.
Further, the number of innocent bystanders killed, or even wounded, in a
gunfight is vanishingly small.
Now I know what you'll say: "If only one death is prevented..." or words to
that effect. In my view, that's arguing from a false premise. In a gunfight,
BOTH participants probably needed killing!
As things work out, one is dead and the other is (usually) locked up for
life.
Perhaps we need MORE gunfights, not fewer. If so, common sense tells one
that you can't have a gunfight without guns.
in 1492032 20110218 181537 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
>
>> Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
>> sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more
>> than a vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then
>> you might just possibly be a little more understanding.
>
>OK, how about some personal experience.
>
>I smoked almost a carton a week from the time I was 18 until almost 60.
>I did switch from unfiltered to filtered about the middle of that.
>
>Just before my 60th birthday I had a heart attack - luckily not a massive
>one. When I got out of intensive care I went outside, pushing my IV
>holder, and had my last cigarette. I noticed no physical withdrawal
>symptoms, just my hand having a reflex action of reaching for my shirt
>pocket every now and then. That went away in a week or two.
>
>I did tell my cardiologist that I missed it and wondered if one cigar a
>month was admissible. He reluctantly agreed. I adhered to that regimen
>for 10 years. When I reached 70 I unilaterally decided to let myself
>have one a week. Been doing that for 4 years. Surely if smoking was
>addictive to me I would have been rapidly increasing my cigar smoking
>until it was a constant thing.
>
>I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
>not seem to be addictive to me.
Smoking is a habit, not an addiction.
I stopped dead at the end of 1975, after 20 years of 30-40 per day, and haven't
had one since.
On 2/13/2011 12:20 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
> given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>
> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
> the suicide rate.
>
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>
If you remove drug-related crime - particularly murder - from the numbers,
US crime rates are unremarkable in context to other Western powers like,
say, Canada. The creation of a contraband market is the single most
important reason there is any significant degree of gunfire AND the ONLY
reason the thugs can afford to buy very expensive illegal weapons.
Legalize guns and drugs. Watch crime rates fall and criminals go broke.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Is that what I wrote? No? Then why are you responding to something I
>> didn't write?
> Don't hand me that Bullshit attempt at playing innocent. You said it all
> by inference with your wasted war on drugs spiel.
Oh, so what I wrote isn't what I meant, really I inferred something else,
but you've seen through my ruse. Right.
> I've personally witnessed what habit forming drugs can do to entire
> families.
And has the War On Drugs stopped that? Has it even significantly reduced
that? Do you doubt that there isn't a high school (so to speak) in your
town where drugs aren't sold and used daily? Do you think anyone who wants
to buy drugs is going to have serious difficulty in doing so? Do you think
that any more than a small minority of drugs shipped into the country are
detected, that anything more than a small minority of drugs grown or mfg.
domestically are kept from reaching their marketplace? In other words, if
the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to prison, the
huge distortions of our laws all to combat street drugs can't actually do
what they are supposed to do, why are we still doing it, why didn't the
lesson of the failure of Prohibition sink in?
> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start shooting is
> exactly that, a crock.
Perhaps so, but since I didn't express such a view, why are acting as if I
did? Oh wait, I forgot, I said whatever you claim I said via "inference".
> There's always going to be that segment of society that doesn't want to
> own a gun, doesn't approve of them being easily available an d are
> essentially too timid or peace loving to want a gun.
And why should their preferences be imposed on sane, sober, law-abiding
citizens who do want to own firearms? Some people don't believe in drinking
alcoholic beverages, or caffeinated beverages for that matter, do their
rules get applied to everyone? Alcohol is clearly a dangerous drug that
causes enormous harm, nothing else even comes close, so why is it legal
while we spend endless billions trying in vain to enforcement laws against
dozens of other recreational drugs? Where is the logic in that?
> Tell me, what happens to them when someone comes along with a gun to take
> advantage of them? Are YOU going to protect them?
Who protects them now? Not the cops, the cops are there to draw a chalk
outline around the body and try to catch whoever did it. Not only are the
cops unable to protect individual citizens, they are under no legal
obligation to do so. So if it's three in the morning and you just woke to
the sound of breaking glass on the other side of your home and you'd rather
have a telephone than a gun, okay, that's your right. But don't presume to
impose your beliefs on the rest of the world.
On 2/18/2011 6:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> If an ex-con has no possible way of working his way back to respectability then surely a powerful motivation for reform is being taken
>>> away. We're supposed to love the repentant sinner, remember?
>>
>
>> We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a republic. Loving someone
>> has nothing to do, one- way or the other - with public policy.
>
> I'm horrified at the thought of religion influencing government, and yet there are many members of a political party I could name who are willing to at least pretend that religion and law should be interchangeable. However, as I'm sure you know, my point was that someone who has sincerely reformed deserves the opportunity to rebuild his life and have all his rights restored after he gets out of jail and demonstrates over time that he can be trusted. It shouldn't be easy, but the path has to be open for someone who really wants to stay on the straight and narrow.
I still think there are people for whom there are to be NO path back. People
whose violation of our social compact is so heinous that they never deserve
a second chance. Among such crimes would include rape, murder, child predation,
and listening to Lady Gaga ...
On 2/14/2011 7:39 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 2/14/2011 12:29 AM, Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start
>>> shooting is exactly that, a crock.
>>
>> Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
>> situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the
>> teeth, from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the
>> first place_ and found it to be more true than not.
>
> <sarcasm>
> Too bad for those cases where it wasn't true. How do you assign
> responsibility where innocent people were hurt?
> </sarcasm>
Hunt the bastards down who are responsible and provide swift and lethal
justice?
> Yes, I am against irresponsible distribution of lethal means.
I agree, but methinks you need to be more specific with your terminology
... much too much room for legal interpretation. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but innocent bystanders have been killed or
> injured in fist fights.
Of course it has, but it's an unlikely occurrence.
Larry, if you haven't noticed those on the Left are
extremely light on truth.
That being the case, you should not be surprised. Its
like the figures being given out about how many guns in
hands of the gangs in Mexico come from the US. The
figure is wholly bogus, but it fits the agenda so they
went with it.
Deb
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip
even when I don't agree
> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we
question the "facts"
> given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over
the last 9 years.
> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I
seriously doubt all
> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>
> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns
won't do much to reduce
> the suicide rate.
>
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug
dealers killing each
> other? The more that happens, the better for the
rest of us.
>
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the
seemingly casual
> misstatement of statistics, something that's become
all too common.
>
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was
>> given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how quickly
>> that would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost? Think
>> about it. Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol would be
>> compounded many times when compared to habit forming drugs.
> Alcohol and tobacco are both habit forming.
And based on the number of people who become addicted to them, they're more
dangerous than heroin.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Obesity costs us countless billions in healthcare costs, so that must mean
> there is a compelling public interest in mandatory dieting and exercise
> with jail time for those who refuse to lose enough weight.
Good point. I'll remember that the next time some fat person tries to mug
me or breaks into my home looking for food money. In actuality, it's a
pretty feeble attempt at making obesity comparable to drug addiction. The
entire planet population needs food to survive. They don't need cocaine or
heroine.
> is tobacco, clearly prison time for those who refuse to quit smoking is
> justifiable.
Tobacco was an industy in production long before governments became directly
involved in people activities. And their powerful lobbying still has force.
Despite that, there has been a concerted effort to reduce smoking by many
governments for some years now. Increased taxation on tobacco is an example
of that. But no, you wouldn't see that because it's not in your nature. You
see, every little niggling or ridiculous comparison you throw at me, I can
easily shoot down for the farce that it is.
> I take drunk driving very seriously, so how about you don't make up
> positions I haven't expressed, okay?
Such as ridiculous comparisons of drug addiction use to obesity or tobacco
use? Uhh, sure, I won't make anything up. I don't have to. Your absolutely
feeble arguments make it simple to dispose of any inane reasoning you choose
to spew.
This all depends on which group he trolls.
Dont' feed the troll!
http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
---------------------------------------------------
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:F3%[email protected]...
Oh, excuse. I didn't realize you were so perfect and never made a bad choice
in your life. And more surely, you've never tried a cigeratte or had a drink
in your life. Of course you've never been drunk either. And when you were a
teenager all exuberant with life, you never intentionally went over the
speed limit at the wrong time and place killing yourself. And if it had
happened, your family would have said c'est la vie and you deserved to die
for making an unwise choice. I'm quite sure you live a pristine life and
will never ever regret anything you've done.
Jackass.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
> in
> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
> a
> bad choice.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin,
> eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven
> billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that?
Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was
given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how quickly that
would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost? Think about it.
Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol would be compounded many
times when compared to habit forming drugs.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All your opinions are contingent on anybody giving a rat's ass about
> your views.
> Nobody cares what you think, Devin. Nobody.
And yet here you are reading my posts and responding to them like an enraged
teenage girl who didn't get asked to the prom. So at the very least *you*
care. LOL.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And here *I* thought YOU, Devvy, were the only smart guy here. You
> sure try awful hard to come out 'on top'..even 'on top' of useless
> arguments.
> Idiot.
Is the concept of "irony" in your lexicon, Robotboy?
On Feb 19, 1:48=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:15:22 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 19, 11:05 am, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" wrote in message
>
> >>news:15fcf1f8-fe89-4efd-96f1-ef084771d814@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >> >> Neither big nor bad, Boytoy, you wouldn't have made a 3rd class tra=
inee
> >> >> back
> >> >> in the old days of Usenet.
> >> > I was not aware that I was standing in the shadow of an experienced
> >> > Usenet flamer.
>
> >> Oh hardly, but I was around to see the really serious trolls do their =
work,
> >> so I developed a thick enough skin not to get all teary over someone f=
laming
> >> me. It's just pixels on a screen, to take it as personally as you are =
is,
> >> well, a bit odd. Maybe you were teased a lot at school when you were a=
kid
> >> or something and you never got over that.
>
> >> > Now explain to me how that makes you less of an asshole.
>
> >> Again, you're following me around calling me names, but you insist I'm=
the
> >> one who qualifies as an asshole--perhaps at some some the irony of tha=
t
> >> situation will occur to you.
>
> >There.. you had the last word. Happy Fuckface?
>
> Grow up and stop feeding the trolls.
>
> --
> Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
> simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 -- Storm Jameson
Ya tinks heza troll?
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:15:22 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 11:05 am, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote in message
>>
>> news:15fcf1f8-fe89-4efd-96f1-ef084771d814@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> Neither big nor bad, Boytoy, you wouldn't have made a 3rd class trainee
>> >> back
>> >> in the old days of Usenet.
>> > I was not aware that I was standing in the shadow of an experienced
>> > Usenet flamer.
>>
>> Oh hardly, but I was around to see the really serious trolls do their work,
>> so I developed a thick enough skin not to get all teary over someone flaming
>> me. It's just pixels on a screen, to take it as personally as you are is,
>> well, a bit odd. Maybe you were teased a lot at school when you were a kid
>> or something and you never got over that.
>>
>> > Now explain to me how that makes you less of an asshole.
>>
>> Again, you're following me around calling me names, but you insist I'm the
>> one who qualifies as an asshole--perhaps at some some the irony of that
>> situation will occur to you.
>
>There.. you had the last word. Happy Fuckface?
Grow up and stop feeding the trolls.
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> interest in just to piss and whine about what a bastard I am, but you
> maintain that *I'm* the troll. So now we know that you're as ignorant of
> logic as you are of irony.
No, you're not a troll. It's quite obvious that you suffer from a severe
form of Last-word-itis. Last-word-itis sufferers have to have the final word
either by typing online or in a spoken venue. Normally, Last-word-itis
victims suffer from an excess of ego. That's certainly not true in your
case. Your ego is so fragile that the only way you can bolster it is to have
the last word everywhere. This assumed victory on your part is the only
reason you haven't yet experienced a complete and total mental breakdown.
I commiserate with you. I too suffered from Last-word-itis, but my illness
wasn't nearly as severe as yours. With the aid of a good woman, I was
instructed in better uses for my fingers and my tongue. I approached this
education with great zeal and shortly after she started teaching me, she
pronounced me cured. I've since gone on to a Masters and then a Ph.D.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>You're apparently one of the fortunate ones who's never had a major -- and
> sudden -- allergy attack.
If it's that serious a condition for you I'm surprised you don't carry a
couple of doses of the effective medication with you all the time, that you
rely on being able to dash into a store when the allergies strike. I get
three-month supplies of my prescriptions send to me in the mail so there is
never any danger of running out, and all it takes is a phone call to my
doctor to get them renewed annually, I haven't stood in line at a drugstore
in years. I appreciate the severity of your condition, my wife suffers from
allergies in the spring. It just seems to me that a little foresight would
make right-this-minute purchases unnecessary.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hellooooooo.... the reason they have $3B in annual sales of cold
> medications
> is that people want decongestants that work.
They want lots of drugs that work for a variety of complaints, and many of
them are available only with a prescription. Are you seriously claiming
that an annual prescription renewal and walking up to the druggist's counter
rather than grabbing a package off the shelf is some serious hindrance to
your health and happiness? Dang, you must be *busy* if that qualifies as a
major crimp in your day.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Perhaps so. But what we're doing now isn't working any better than it
> worked
> 90 years ago when we tried to do the same thing with alcohol. ISTM that
> it's
> time to try something different.
Quite possibly. The only flaw in your argument is that legalizing and
controlling all drugs as has been suggested is not the answer. Suggest
something else. What you are suggesting is just the last recourse of
grasping at straws for a solution.
There's a marked difference between a crazed methamphetamine user and an
angry drunk. Any day of the year, I'd face a mean angry drunk over an angry
speed user. Many might equate the two as similar problems and apply similar
solutions, but I'm not one of them. They're at the opposite ends of the
spectrum when it comes to addictions as far as I'm concerned.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin,
>> eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven
>> billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that?
> Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was
> given freely to those to asked for it.
I take it you've never been in a Nevada casino.
> Do you have any idea how quickly that would become an unsistainable act
> and what it would cost? Think about it. Any possible scenario you might
> propose for alcohol would be compounded many times when compared to habit
> forming drugs.
As usual you're not thinking this through. Ever hear of methadone? It's
given to junkies as a safer substitute for heroin, something to suppress
their addiction as well as the criminal behavior needed to pay pushers. It
isn't given out to anyone who asks for it, but to confirmed junkies as part
of medical treatment, sometimes at the order of a court. Now, pay
attention--the point here is whether a junkie has access to methadone or
actual clinical heroin, the costs to society are going to be far, far less
than if he's out doing crimes to pay for street heroin. Nobody is saying
drug addiction is cool, nobody is encouraging the free distribution of
drugs, the whole point is that since there are already millions of addicts
we need to consider ways to reduce the vast expense those addicts impose on
society. Think about your own neighborhood; would you rather have addicts
out breaking into cars and homes to pay street dealers for drugs, with cops
and prosecutors chasing after them and prison guards keeping them locked up?
Or would it be better if they were getting methadone at a clinic--which
approach will consume fewer of your tax dollars?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
> in
> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
> a
> bad choice.
Oh, excuse. I didn't realize you were so perfect and never made a bad choice
in your life. And more surely, you've never tried a cigeratte or had a drink
in your life. Of course you've never been drunk either. And when you were a
teenager all exuberant with life, you never intentionally went over the
speed limit at the wrong time and place killing yourself. And if it had
happened, your family would have said c'est la vie and you deserved to die
for making an unwise choice. I'm quite sure you live a pristine life and
will never ever regret anything you've done.
Jackass.
"Josepi" wrote in message news:2%[email protected]...
> According to these stats published, USA is way out and beyond almost any
> other country in the world. Canada and other gun control countries have
> much lower figures including and not including suicide.
Brazil has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. and a murder rate four times
higher. Meanwhile Vermont has very loose gun laws (e.g. concealed carry
without a permit) and routinely is at the bottom of U.S. crime rates.
Obviously things other than gun laws are behind violent crime rates. If you
want to bring down violent crime, do something about education, poverty and
a booming trade in street drugs, that way you'll actually accomplish
something. But disarming people who are extremely unlikely to ever commit a
serious crime isn't going to accomplish much at all.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Is that what I wrote? No? Then why are you responding to something I
> didn't write?
Don't hand me that Bullshit attempt at playing innocent. You said it all by
inference with your wasted war on drugs spiel. You've said in no uncertain
terms that the war on drugs is a complete waste of time and money. You've
inferred that basic freedoms should be universal. That same suggested
freedom easily extends to owning guns. I've personally witnessed what habit
forming drugs can do to entire families. I've seen how easily obtained
firearms can takes innocent lives.
That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start shooting is
exactly that, a crock. There's always going to be that segment of society
that doesn't want to own a gun, doesn't approve of them being easily
available an d are essentially too timid or peace loving to want a gun. Tell
me, what happens to them when someone comes along with a gun to take
advantage of them? Are YOU going to protect them?
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> is tobacco, clearly prison time for those who refuse to quit smoking is
>> justifiable.
> Tobacco was an industy in production long before governments became
> directly involved in people activities.
Mind altering drugs are as old as civilization. The Incas chewed coco
leaves, the ancient Egyptians used cannabis, brewing beer is one of the
oldest scientific achievements of mankind. So if longevity is the key, then
drugs would seem to be here to stay.
> Despite that, there has been a concerted effort to reduce smoking by many
> governments for some years now. Increased taxation on tobacco is an
> example of that. But no, you wouldn't see that because it's not in your
> nature. You see, every little niggling or ridiculous comparison you throw
> at me, I can easily shoot down for the farce that it is.
You couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle.
>> I take drunk driving very seriously, so how about you don't make up
>> positions I haven't expressed, okay?
> Such as ridiculous comparisons of drug addiction use to obesity or tobacco
> use? Uhh, sure, I won't make anything up. I don't have to. Your absolutely
> feeble arguments make it simple to dispose of any inane reasoning you
> choose to spew.
Okay tiger, you go on telling yourself how devastating your rhetorical
attack is. The rest of us will smile and perhaps roll our eyes a bit.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go fuck yourself.
Aren't you the guy who was out of this thread several posts back?
> A simple response is adequate for you since you don't have the brain power
> to deal with anything more complex.
The rest of the world is all idiots, you're the only smart guy here. Got
it.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, you're advocating a wild west frontier justice for this present time
> frame.
Is that what I wrote? No? Then why are you responding to something I
didn't write?
> It's all well and good in theory, but the reality is that people are
> basically greedy, selfish and essentially out only for themselves. That's
> the animal survival instinct taking over. Those people who don't subscribe
> entirely to those baser instincts are easily swallowed up by those who do.
> That's my opinion. And your opinion is just that, an *unproven* opinion
> for this current age of technology and freedoms. You can't compare what
> might have happened in the recent past to what could happen now. With
> biological weapons, nuclear weapons and entire arsenals of offensive arms
> at hand, what you are advocating is completely ludicrous.
What on earth are you talking about?
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I've never been in a bar fight in my life, I haven't been intoxicated in
> public for twenty years at least, so explain to me why restricting my
> ownership of firearms will have the slightest impact on the number of
> people shot as a result of fights in bars.
Because you're advocating gun freedom for everybody, not just you. Stating
that you haven't done any of those things above is just ared herring when it
comes to talking about everybody. It's about as shortsighted as you can get
to suggest that 'an armed society is a polite society' will take care of all
or most potentially volatile situations. People are people with emotions,
the instinct to survive and in reality, the greed to take what they can get
away with. Yup, that's a pessimistic, cynical view of the human race, but I
don't apologize for it in any way shape or form.
DGDevin wrote:
>
> Legality aside, it is absurd to imagine that the police will be there
> to protect you at the moment you need them, a cop car is unlikely to
> be passing in front of your house at the moment a masked burglar
> carrying a flashlight and crowbar gets out of his car. The best the
> police can do is try to catch criminals so they can be prosecuted,
> but that is after the fact. At three in the morning when you wake up
> to the sound of breaking glass, you're on your own for at least
> several minutes even if you manage to call 911. You're free to rely
> on alarm signs and motion-activated lighting and a dog if you please
> (all good ideas) but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to
> the means to defend themselves and their families in their own homes.
Speaking as an ex-cop, I second your observation. In reality, the police
seldom see the perp - but they ALWAYS see the victim.
I recall a fellow officer responding to an "armed robbery in progress" from
just a few blocks away. As he approached the scene he observed a Cadillac
fleeing the location at a high rate of speed. Giving pursuit, he eventually
got the car stopped and called for backup.
"SLOWLY GET OUT OF THE CAR., HANDS IN THE AIR!" the deputy shouted.
A black man eased out, hands reaching for the stars.
"FACE DOWN ON THE STREET. SPREAD YOUR ARMS," insisted my fellow deputy.
The black man complied.
My colleague approached, put his knee in the driver's back, and, as he began
to apply the bracelets, said: You move muthafucka, and I'll blow your ass to
Kansas!"
The black man spoke: "Hey man, I OWNS the gas station! I was CHASIN' the
robbers!"
Oh well, at least my buddy got to meet the victim and offer commiserations
and empathy.
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6337eed2-bb16-4028-b2fb-d87e81483e5b@n16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 3:16 am, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Some, like anything else, don't get addicted but those are in the
> minority.
> I smoked for many years then switched to Copenhagen for about ten years.
> Chewed at work and always found those that walked around spitting in a can
> disgusting. I swallowed it. When I quit, I had serious withdrawal
> symptoms.
I'm experiencing a serious gag reflex just thinking about swallowing
chew/snuff fluid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point is though that others around me didn't have to see it.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:7eb9c70e-c336-4f7e-9e0d-1a30d42c1429@c10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>> Documentation please,
>>
>> Cite?
> Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.
Oh dear, it appears your feelings are still hurt, poor thing.
The way it works is the guy who makes a fact & figures sort of claim needs
to back it up, it isn't the job of anyone else to prove him wrong. So if
someone claims that Robotboy is actually a 16-year-old girl with emotional
issues I'll still need to see convincing evidence of that however much that
claim would explain much of what you post.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> * Where are we going to get enough horses, and
> * What will we do with all the horse shit?
Well, in this day and age, methane gas is a viable business opportunity.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:63be38c6-954e-4d39-a53d-836704bf629d@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>> > So I did a little Googling and lo and behold DGDevin is an asshole in
>> > LOTS of other newsgroups too.
>
>> English translation: your nose is so out of joint that you did a search
>> on
>> me
> That translation of yours is incorrect. Making up stuff again, eh?
So in your universe "I did a little Googling" and doing a search are not the
same thing huh? You're not thinking this through, are you.
> Uhhmm, nope. I googled other news groups because I was curious to find
> out if it was normal for you to get so upset.
Let me get this straight. You jumped into this thread just to whine and
snivel about how what a swine I am, and you did a Google search on me, but
you maintain that *I* am the one who is upset?
At some level even you must understand why this is laughably unconvincing.
> Obviously, you get all excited if anybody talks to you. You do this
> all the time. Streeeetching out discussions just to feel wanted.
> Unfortunately, you are just not interesting enough for me to do any
> further searches.
I haven't done *any* searches on you, sunshine, I couldn't care less where
you post or who you argue with or anything else about you. All I need to
know is you get kind of childish when someone mocks you online, and that's
not something most grownups would want said about them, is it.
> Devvy, if lowly lill' ol' me gets you all this excited, you must live
> a very boring life.
Again, Boytoy, you followed me to this thread, remember? So *logically* the
guy who does web searches on people is probably the one with emotional
issues, isn't he.
> You are correct about one thing. You did demonstrate in a previous
> exchange how screwed up you are, I just butted in to see if your
> condition was chronic.
*Very* believable, you could probably fool almost any five-year-old with
that line. But at least you've admitted that you're still pissed off over
whatever it was I disagree with you about, that's progress of a sort.
> Bottom line? I'm bored with you. How about something creative?
You guys almost follow a script, don't you. You know, you guys who like to
get into little flame wars online and who then react badly when it doesn't
go like they wanted. You all do Google searches looking for something to
use as a weapon, you all claim to be bored at some point (but you always
come back again and again). Maybe it's a franchise and you have corporate
rules to follow.
> Nighty night! Don't stay up too long thinking of ways to get to this
> Big Bad Robatoy...
Neither big nor bad, Boytoy, you wouldn't have made a 3rd class trainee back
in the old days of Usenet. Seriously, to get as cranky as you are over some
petty disrespect in a newsgroup, that's really odd. Ways to get you? What
is this, Grade Five?
> And now I fart in your general direction!
Best thing you've come up with so far.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Or would it be better if they were getting methadone at a clinic--which
> approach will consume fewer of your tax dollars?
I wasn't going to take part in this thread anymore as related to you, but
you deserve a response.
Methadone has been around for over 30 years. Junkies haven't been lining up
for it as your assumptions suggest and it's not nearly as effective as you
seem to think. Just to support your universal Methadone solution, why don't
you go get some facts on how many addicts eventually go back to their former
drug life.
Methadone occupies the receptor area in the brain that heroin and other
opiate drugs used to occupy. Methadone does *not* produce the high or the
rush that opiate drugs cause. Methadone does not cure an addiction. Many
patients require continuous treatment and others often take years to break
their addiction cycle. Finally, methadone is only effective for opiate
drugs. It has no effect on amphetamine type drugs as well as a number of
others.
As usual, your uninformed solutions are short sighted, reactionary and
simple spouting off out of frustration. That I can understand. But for a
number of you here who seem to come up with viable solutions to drug control
daily (and often hourly) you're all deluded if you think your solutions are
workable. For years, many people both infinitely more experienced and much
more knowledgable about the drug industry have been working on solutions to
the drug problem without coming up with a truly workable solution.
The rec is your sounding board. Fine, let it all out. But for those of you
who seem think that they 'have the solution', perhaps you should commit
yourself for awhile. You need it.
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:17:42 -0500, Upscale wrote:
>> Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And that's
>> despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated and the
>> money spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover what will
>> happen to society if we go the route of legalizing it all and taxing it
>> or whatever. You think you know, but that's just your opinion.
> Well, we know what happened when Prohibition came in, and it's the same
> thing that's happening now with drugs. We also know that when
> Prohibition was repealed the country did not fall apart as some claimed
> it would. Why should we not expect the same result with drugs?
Well said. We tried Prohibition, it was a massive failure and created a
whole new problem by enriching The Mob. So what did we do with drugs? We
repeated the same failure all over again. If we *wanted* to make street
drugs widely available we couldn't have done a much better job, they're
everywhere, and they support street gangs and drug cartels which have caused
more harm than addicts ever could.
We're beating our collective head against a brick wall, the wall is always
going to win, and yet there are people terrified of stopping. It is truly a
bizarre situation.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Not enough woodworking content.
>>
>>
>
> Which is why he said "OT:" and you Deleted from the subject line. No donut
> for you tonight!
Um, no, no I didn't. It would appear that he posted twice,
once with "OT" and once without. It was the without one
that I took issue. I'll have my donut now.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
> >
> > "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> UK, and more so the Netherlands.
> >
> > Yes? Cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, ecstasy, heroine? Are you
> > telling me they're all legal?
>
> At one point in time, all those were legal or at least some legal and some
> decriminalized.
>
> It was a failure.
In what way was it a "failure"?
> They were forced to put more restraints in place.
Forced in what way?
> I was
> there, and saw people sitting around parks in plain view downtown, shooting
> heroine between their toes.
And this was worse than the current situation in which the drug dealers
shoot 9mm between people's eyes?
> Filth everywhere,
And this had what to do with drugs?
> as were so many shady people,
And of course there are now no shady people.
> all I wanted to know was how quickly I could get the family out of town.
And the situation has been improved in what way?
The same sort of argument can be made about alcohol. And we know how
banning _that_ turned out.
The drug ban has created a huge criminal class, just as Prohibition did,
and has not reduced drug availability. It is an expensive failure. The
time to pull the plug and try a different approach is long, long past.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/14/2011 8:20 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article<[email protected]>, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would
> >> be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs.
> >
> > On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at
> > least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place
> > is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose
> > actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause
> > demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for
> > jailing recreational drug users?
>
> Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
> reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
> feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
> when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we
> should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
> There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
Further, tax and regulate the drugs so that they are of a standard
concentration and purity and revenue is being _derived_ from their sale
rather than _expended_ trying to prevent it. If someone as the result
of being in an impaired state injures someone else, make _that_ a
criminal offence. And provide some _real_ drug education in the schools
and not the obvious propagandizing that goes on now.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
> >
> > "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> UK, and more so the Netherlands.
> >
> > Yes? Cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, ecstasy, heroine? Are you
> > telling me they're all legal?
>
> At one point in time, all those were legal or at least some legal and some
> decriminalized.
>
> It was a failure. They were forced to put more restraints in place. I was
> there, and saw people sitting around parks in plain view downtown, shooting
> heroine between their toes. Filth everywhere, as were so many shady people,
> all I wanted to know was how quickly I could get the family out of town.
If the ban on heroin fixed that you have to be more than 100 years old--
it was prohibited in the US in 1906 and that prohibition has never been
rescinded, although the penalties have been increased several times.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/14/2011 11:17 PM, Upscale wrote:
> > "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to prison, the
> >> huge distortions of our laws all to combat street drugs can't actually do
> >> what they are supposed to do, why are we still doing it, why didn't the
> >> lesson of the failure of Prohibition sink in?
> >
> > I only have one response to your idea that drugs, guns, whatever should be
> > legalized and controlled.
> >
> > Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And that's
> > despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated and the money
> > spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover what will happen to
> > society if we go the route of legalizing it all and taxing it or whatever.
> > You think you know, but that's just your opinion. There's the real
> > possibility is that it could lead to terrible repercussions. Nobody who
> > tries a habit forming drug wants to become an addict. Yet, there are new
> > addicts all the time. Pray tell, what will happen when those drugs become
> > legal and many more people try them out just for recreation.
> >
> > There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of some
> > developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all. Until you
> > can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble conjecture and nothing
> > else. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the society I live in
> > being the first to attempt it.
> >
> >
> What about alcohol addiction? Caffeine addiction? Refined sugar
> addiction? Tobacco addiction? (Completely legal) prescription drug
> addiction?
Actually he's right, we don't know what will happen. But we don't know
what will happen with most social programs. Didn't stop us from
implementing them.
In the US drugs were completely legal prior to 1906. We had a
functioning, more or less civil society then. Why would we not have one
that is at least as well functioning and more or less civil now?
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:16:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
> >>In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
> >>Rob others. Meth, for example.
> >
> >But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal.
> >>
> >>Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control
> >>and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
> >
> >And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft
> >and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home
> >should be left alone.
>
> Doug making meth is not extremely expensive, dangerous but not
> expensive at all.
Another argument for legalization. Legal, licensed, inspected meth labs
are less likely to burn, when they do burn they are less likely to burn
down the neighborhood, and the operators will have insurance to pay for
the damage to others caused by the fire, not to mention workmen's comp
for the injured workers.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 2/14/2011 11:17 PM, Upscale wrote:
> >>> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to
> >>>> prison, the huge distortions of our laws all to combat street
> >>>> drugs can't actually do what they are supposed to do, why are we
> >>>> still doing it, why didn't the lesson of the failure of
> >>>> Prohibition sink in?
> >>>
> >>> I only have one response to your idea that drugs, guns, whatever
> >>> should be legalized and controlled.
> >>>
> >>> Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And
> >>> that's despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated
> >>> and the money spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover
> >>> what will happen to society if we go the route of legalizing it all
> >>> and taxing it or whatever. You think you know, but that's just your
> >>> opinion. There's the real possibility is that it could lead to
> >>> terrible repercussions. Nobody who tries a habit forming drug wants
> >>> to become an addict. Yet, there are new addicts all the time. Pray
> >>> tell, what will happen when those drugs become legal and many more
> >>> people try them out just for recreation.
> >>>
> >>> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of
> >>> some developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it
> >>> all. Until you can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble
> >>> conjecture and nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit
> >>> interested in the society I live in being the first to attempt it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> What about alcohol addiction? Caffeine addiction? Refined sugar
> >> addiction? Tobacco addiction? (Completely legal) prescription drug
> >> addiction?
> >
> > Actually he's right, we don't know what will happen. But we don't
> > know what will happen with most social programs. Didn't stop us from
> > implementing them.
> >
> > In the US drugs were completely legal prior to 1906. We had a
> > functioning, more or less civil society then. Why would we not have
> > one that is at least as well functioning and more or less civil now?
>
> life, people, morals, and general ethics of society's lessened personal
> responsiblity beliefs have changed to the detriment. in the general case, of
> course.
Could be. And it could be that unenforceable bans on this and that and
the other that create huge classes of outlaws and scofflaws is the
cause.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose
> >> control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
> >
> > And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail,
> > because theft
> > and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at
> > home
> > should be left alone.
>
> Nope. In those countries where our illicit drugs are legal, and even handed
> out by the government, there has been no discernable drop in the number of
> folks who obtain their drugs illegally. The only result of legal drugs is an
> increased number of addicts.
In which countries can one obtain drugs legally and in which countries
are they "handed out by the government"?
> How much do illegal drugs cost society?
>
> A Heroin addict will "shoot" one "paper" of Horse per day (if he can get
> it). A "paper" is 1 gram of 5% Heroin and costs about $100 on the street.
What does it cost at a pharamcy with a prescription? That's the price
that they would be paying if it was legal you know.
> Assuming the addict is not a female (who can earn the $100 by
tricking) and
> assuming the addict does not have a job that leaves $100 per day in
> discretionary spending, your addict has to steal. Armed robbers don't last
> long, so, in the main, the thief is a burglar or car thief.
>
> In order to net the $100, the thief has to steal something worth about four
> times that amount, or $400 (hey, fences have to feed their families too!).
> So, then, $400/day x 365 days per year is $146,000 taken out of the economy
> for each Heroin addict in the wild.
>
> How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000 (out
> of six million).
On what information do you base this guess?
> That's over $7 billion in loss or increased insurance rates
> just for Heroin. Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed, meth, and
> Red Bull.
And would all this crime still need to take place if the stuff was sold
at the prescription price rather than the drug dealer price?
> The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term Heroin
> addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy.
So it's a self-limiting problem.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Just Wondering wrote:
> >
> > Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
> > reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
> > feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
> > when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that
> > we should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug
> > users. There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
> > criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation
> > and impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a
> > civil claim.
>
> In another post I showed the computation for Heroin use to be about $138,000
> taken out of the economy in thefts and insurance rates caused by one addict.
Nobody has proposed that theft be made legal. If a drug user steals,
arrest him and put him in jail for stealing.
> In my state, it costs about $36,000 to house a prisoner per year. Locking up
> the addicts, then, saves the community over $100,000 per incarcerated
> addict.
Now let's see, a gram of 5 percent heroin would be then 50 mg of 100
percent heroin? 100 mg of Morphine at a pharamcy is under 5 bucks.
Heroin should be about the same. So if he could get the Heroin legally
it would reduce that cost to under $1000.
> We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison
> population.
If they steal and get caught, sure.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >>
> >> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of
> >> some developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all.
> >> Until you can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble
> >> conjecture and nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit
> >> interested in the society I live in being the first to attempt it.
> >>
> >
> > UK, and more so the Netherlands.
>
> In both cases, illicit use did not diminish. Both countries simply ended up
> with more addicts.
Neither legalized the sale of any drug other than by prescription.
And you are conflating illict _use_ with illicit _sales_. In the
Netherlands it is not unlawful to buy or use drugs, so for the most part
use is not illicit. What is illicit is _sales_.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > Neither legalized the sale of any drug other than by prescription.
> >
> > And you are conflating illict _use_ with illicit _sales_. In the
> > Netherlands it is not unlawful to buy or use drugs, so for the most
> > part use is not illicit. What is illicit is _sales_.
>
> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess in the
> Netherlands.
>
> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, etc.) are
> also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The Netherlands.
You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on in
Portugal while you're about it.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/15/2011 12:57 PM, Upscale wrote:
> > "DGDevin"<[email protected]>
> >> massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all
> >> have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the
> >> process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself
> >> senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if
> >> he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is
> >> entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people
> >> have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose
> >> to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves
> >> unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so.
> >
> > And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks
> > about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world
> > doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've
> > having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or
> > just in everyday living.
> >
> > Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
> > felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the
> > downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How
> > many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You
> > might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been
> > a member of one of those families so afflicted.
> >
> > Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the
> > occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a
> > downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive
> > drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and
> > benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the
> > very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without
> > exception.
> >
>
> Undoubtedly there would be repercussions. But there are already
> repercussions from the existing illegal drug trade. The question is,
> which set of repercussions is worse?
Precisely.
And I am curious as to the evidence that leads Upscale to believe that
alcohol is not a "habit forming drug". He might want to google
"alcoholism".
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess
> >> in the Netherlands.
> >>
> >> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin,
> >> etc.) are also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The
> >> Netherlands.
> >
> > You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on in
> > Portugal while you're about it.
>
> I checked before I posted. Visit the chart at:
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm
>
> The Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.S. are signatories to the United
> Nations Single Convention Treaty on drugs. The treaty provides that
> signatories provide criminal penalties for the use, manufacture, sale,
> transport, blah-blah-blah, listed drugs.
>
> Inasmuch as our constitution says that "This constitution and treaties made
> pursuant thereto shall be the supreme law of the land," we cannot make ANY
> proscribed drug legal without abrogating the treaty. Same with the Dutch and
> Portugese.
Do some more research.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess
> >>>> in the Netherlands.
> >>>>
> >>>> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin,
> >>>> etc.) are also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The
> >>>> Netherlands.
> >>>
> >>> You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on in
> >>> Portugal while you're about it.
> >>
> >> I checked before I posted. Visit the chart at:
> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm
> >>
> >> The Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.S. are signatories to the United
> >> Nations Single Convention Treaty on drugs. The treaty provides that
> >> signatories provide criminal penalties for the use, manufacture,
> >> sale, transport, blah-blah-blah, listed drugs.
> >>
> >> Inasmuch as our constitution says that "This constitution and
> >> treaties made pursuant thereto shall be the supreme law of the
> >> land," we cannot make ANY proscribed drug legal without abrogating
> >> the treaty. Same with the Dutch and Portugese.
> >
> > Do some more research.
>
> You are the one who asserted that it is not illegal to buy or use drugs in
> the Netherlands. I disputed that, sort of. I showed you that it is illegal
> in The Netherlands to "possess" virtually all drugs. By buying or using
> drugs, one is "possessing" them, therefore both of those conditions are
> illegal.
>
> It is now up to you to validate your claim.
Any ggogleing of "Netherlands Drug Policy" will show that oan walk into
a restaurant in the Netherlands and buy drugs off a menu.
Technically, they are unlawful however the official policy is that the
law is not enforced. The same is true in Portugal. If you want to call
something done in accordance with official government policy "illicit"
go right ahead.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
> >> dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
> >> dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
> >
> > If there is no supply ...
> >
> Then you are living on some other planet.
The point that is continually missed is that people who want to get high
will find a way to get high. People have been known to get high on
cooking spray so you can expect the DEA to ban that next.
In article <[email protected]>, frozenNorth123
@gm.nospam.ail.com says...
>
> On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
> >
> > Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
> > sensitivity.
>
> This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
> their shop dog.
>
> The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back
> to the groin, and painted cherry.
And pukey ducks. Can't forget the pukey ducks.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to
> >>>>>> possess in the Netherlands.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin,
> >>>>>> etc.) are also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The
> >>>>>> Netherlands.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on
> >>>>> in Portugal while you're about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I checked before I posted. Visit the chart at:
> >>>> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> The Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.S. are signatories to the
> >>>> United Nations Single Convention Treaty on drugs. The treaty
> >>>> provides that signatories provide criminal penalties for the use,
> >>>> manufacture, sale, transport, blah-blah-blah, listed drugs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Inasmuch as our constitution says that "This constitution and
> >>>> treaties made pursuant thereto shall be the supreme law of the
> >>>> land," we cannot make ANY proscribed drug legal without abrogating
> >>>> the treaty. Same with the Dutch and Portugese.
> >>>
> >>> Do some more research.
> >>
> >> You are the one who asserted that it is not illegal to buy or use
> >> drugs in the Netherlands. I disputed that, sort of. I showed you
> >> that it is illegal in The Netherlands to "possess" virtually all
> >> drugs. By buying or using drugs, one is "possessing" them, therefore
> >> both of those conditions are illegal.
> >>
> >> It is now up to you to validate your claim.
> >
> > Any ggogleing of "Netherlands Drug Policy" will show that oan walk
> > into a restaurant in the Netherlands and buy drugs off a menu.
> >
> > Technically, they are unlawful however the official policy is that the
> > law is not enforced. The same is true in Portugal. If you want to
> > call something done in accordance with official government policy
> > "illicit" go right ahead.
>
> I'm glad you finally agree with my statement above, "EVERY drug illegal to
> possess in the US is also illegal to possess in the Netherlands."
>
> If you want to discuss police and prosectorial malfeasance, corruption in
> government, and subverting the rule of law, that's a whole 'nother thread.
The policy in Portugal is implemented by public law. So how is that
"police and prosecutorial malfeasance, corruption in government, and
subverting the rule of law"?
Sorry, but you really need to get your head of the DEA's ass and start
doing some research on your own--the DEA has a vested interest in making
us believe that drugs are an immense problem that can only be resolved
by draconian measures implemented by the DEA busting all and sundry.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> If you want to discuss police and prosectorial malfeasance,
> >> corruption in government, and subverting the rule of law, that's a
> >> whole 'nother thread.
> >
> > The policy in Portugal is implemented by public law. So how is that
> > "police and prosecutorial malfeasance, corruption in government, and
> > subverting the rule of law"?
> >
> > Sorry, but you really need to get your head of the DEA's ass and start
> > doing some research on your own--the DEA has a vested interest in
> > making us believe that drugs are an immense problem that can only be
> > resolved by draconian measures implemented by the DEA busting all and
> > sundry.
>
> I knew nothing about Portugal, so I didn't comment on it. Since you
> insisted, I looked it up.
>
> EVERY drung illegal in the U.S. is likewise imposes a sanction on the
> Portugese.
>
> While up to a ten day's supply of a drug is not subject to CRIMINAL
> penalties in Portugal, people who possess these drugs ARE subject to CIVIL
> remedies, including fines and incarceration.
Only if they are not addicted.
> You are confusing "decriminalization" with "legalization." Illegal drugs are
> still "illegal" in Portugal, though only through the civil process.
Yes, they are technical violations of the law.
You seem to be getting hung up on minor technicalities and not on the
actual effect of the policies.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
>
> > Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
> > sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more
> > than a vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then
> > you might just possibly be a little more understanding.
>
> OK, how about some personal experience.
>
> I smoked almost a carton a week from the time I was 18 until almost 60.
> I did switch from unfiltered to filtered about the middle of that.
>
> Just before my 60th birthday I had a heart attack - luckily not a massive
> one. When I got out of intensive care I went outside, pushing my IV
> holder, and had my last cigarette. I noticed no physical withdrawal
> symptoms, just my hand having a reflex action of reaching for my shirt
> pocket every now and then. That went away in a week or two.
>
> I did tell my cardiologist that I missed it and wondered if one cigar a
> month was admissible. He reluctantly agreed. I adhered to that regimen
> for 10 years. When I reached 70 I unilaterally decided to let myself
> have one a week. Been doing that for 4 years. Surely if smoking was
> addictive to me I would have been rapidly increasing my cigar smoking
> until it was a constant thing.
>
> I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
> not seem to be addictive to me.
Same here. Every now and again I get the urge and chain-smoke a pack of
Sobranies or smoke my pipe for a couple or three days. Then the urge
passes and usually several years go by before I get the urge again.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Seriously, grow up.
Go fuck yourself asshole.
Let's see how much crap you can generate from that. Should be quite a lot
because you're full of it.
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
>> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
>> than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
> Rehab is 30k/month.
Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?
http://www.drug-alcohol-rehabs.org/drug-rehab-cost.html
"From the National Substance Abuse Treatment Services Survey (N-SATSS), the
average cost for inpatient programs was about $7,000 per month. Since more
than 30 days produces a higher recovery rate, the cost of drug rehab can
easily go between $7,500 and $75,000. A typical cost is usually going to be
about $36,000 for a 90-day program."
And that's private treatment, I bet the VA or the armed services do it
cheaper than that.
Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're looking
at a one-time expense. For the same money you get to lock up someone for
just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the odds of them returning
to prison are high. So which approach seems like a better use of the
taxpayer's dollar? Half of all federal prison inmates are there for drug
offenses, and prisons cost the American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I
think exploring alternatives is at least worth trying.
> Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.
What do you figure your odds are of getting that past the Supreme Court?
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> * What will we do with all the horse shit?
>>
>> Well, in this day and age, methane gas is a viable business opportunity.
> ------------------------------------------
> SFWIW
>
> The State of Ohio has built an evaluation anaerobic digester waste water
> treatment system at the agricultural experiment station in Wooster, Ohio.
> (About $5M)
>
> As long as animal waste is an integral part of the food growing system,
> might as well use the existing technology that predates the Romans to make
> the process more efficient.
>
> There is a ready market for the methane and the fertilizer generated.
Soylent Green is coming to us at some point too... Some of the ingredients
will likely be full of BS... ;~)
John
...and you will not find anything to convince you that gun carrying is not a
good thing either.
In Canada we don't need to protect ourselves against a perceived enemy. We
control the gun crowd fairly well and will tighten the laws as the
statistics continually prove it working, and each time we get more out of
the hands of the general public. What would we need to have a gun at home
for anyway? If I used it on a thief stealing form my house I would guilty of
murder. Once the thief steals something the crime is done. Only revenge is
left.
Some swear it is a God given right to bear arms and yet declare war on other
countries because they might have bigger weapon (WMD). I guess the morality
doesn't apply to everybody.
In the end only the lunatics will have illegal guns.
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:140220112253253574%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
There is nothing that I can find on that page about children sneaking
in late at night.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Even pulling the goalie is no longer an option Mr. Screen Name. Better
> luck next time.
Go fuck yourself.
A simple response is adequate for you since you don't have the brain power
to deal with anything more complex.
"Markem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps you should mosey on over there, you could get mominated for an
> award!
Advice from anonymous g-mail accounts--sorry--not worth much.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:53:35 -0800, "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Where else can one
>get this sort of entertainment for free?
alt.usenet.kooks
Perhaps you should mosey on over there, you could get mominated for an
award!
Mark
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of some
> developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all. Until you
> can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble conjecture and
> nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the society I
> live in being the first to attempt it.
By that logic no law should be passed until another nation has tried it and
proved it works. Unfortunately that means such a law will never exist
because there will never be grounds for any nation to try, there will be no
precedent.
So despite the mountainous evidence that the War On Drugs has been a hugely
expensive failure, despite the millions of criminal convictions and the
distortion of our laws all in the name of suppressing drugs, we can't try
anything different because..., well just because. We haven't tried it,
therefore we shouldn't try it. Brilliant, really, circular logic that dooms
us to the same policies that have failed us for most of the past century.
Sorry, You are bending the stats badly to indicate a false positive for your
killing instincts.
Brazil brought in some gun controls for a gun crazy population, out of
control in 2002. In 2003 the gun related deaths reduced by over 10%. I can't
find further stats for later years as the gun controls are tightened up even
more. The estimated gun population is about half are unregistered and still
illegal.
Lets compare apples with apples and look at gun population vs gun deaths,
not new regulations vs gun deaths.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Brazil has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. and a murder rate four times
higher. Meanwhile Vermont has very loose gun laws (e.g. concealed carry
without a permit) and routinely is at the bottom of U.S. crime rates.
Obviously things other than gun laws are behind violent crime rates. If you
want to bring down violent crime, do something about education, poverty and
a booming trade in street drugs, that way you'll actually accomplish
something. But disarming people who are extremely unlikely to ever commit a
serious crime isn't going to accomplish much at all.
"Josepi" wrote in message news:2%[email protected]...
> According to these stats published, USA is way out and beyond almost any
> other country in the world. Canada and other gun control countries have
> much lower figures including and not including suicide.
"Bob Martin" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Smoking is a habit, not an addiction.
There is massive medical evidence that it is indeed an addiction, with clear
bio-chemical impact on the brain.
> I stopped dead at the end of 1975, after 20 years of 30-40 per day, and
> haven't
> had one since.
Some people are more susceptible to addiction than others, just as some
people are more likely to have heart attacks or get cancer or lose their
hair. I can think of a couple of friends who kicked addictions like
drinking for a decade or more and then were drawn back into that
self-destructive spiral, so it sure looks to me like for some people it
isn't just a matter of willpower.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000
>> (out
>> of six million).
> On what information do you base this guess?
Information? He donât got no information. He don't got to show you no
stinkin' information.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But, this is a different argument. Time and time again, you (and others)
> have pointed out that there's all these potential victims waiting to be
> tortured, raped, robbed and killed because they didn't have a gun on hand
> to protect themselves. I ask you. Who are all these potential victims?
> Where are all these potential victims?
Depending on whether you want to believe the NRA or the Dept. of Justice,
somewhere between two million (NRA) and one and a half million (DOJ) times a
year in America someone uses a firearm defensively, sometimes without firing
a shot. Typically these cases are reported in local or perhaps regional
news, they rarely make the national media however, but that doesnt mean
they don't happen.
> Not in my building of 200 apartment suites where if one person knows
> something, we all do. Gossip is a powerful communication device.
If you like anecdotal evidence, here is some for you. I know two people who
used a gun to defend themselves against violent criminals, and one of them
was a direct ancestor of mine who used a gun to save herself and her two
young children from a violent intruder.
BTW, some American cities have higher homicide rates than Toronto (much
higher), and some lower. Overall Canada has higher rates of burglary and
rape than the U.S. however, so regardless of your perception of what happens
out there in the great big world there are millions of law-abiding folks who
like knowing that if crime comes to their home, they have something other
than a telephone to protect themselves with.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So despite the mountainous evidence that the War On Drugs has been a
> hugely expensive failure, despite the millions of criminal convictions and
> the distortion of our laws all in the name of suppressing drugs, we can't
> try anything different because..., well just because. We haven't tried
> it, therefore we shouldn't try it.
Not really. You shouldn't try it out of common sense. Assuming that you're
an adult with experiences similar to most, common sense should tell you when
something is dangerous to try. What you're advocating, is extremely
dangerous to attempt and has the real possiblity of destroying society as we
know it today. With all the bad things that happen daily and my cynical view
of the human race in general, I believe our present society has a lot of
good, even great things going for it. I for one, am not willing to risk
destroying it just to 'try something new' like you propose.
"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I don't own a gun and I have no need to get even with an intruder as
> people with guns seem to lust for.
What they lust for is to continue breathing, to not be beaten, stabbed,
shot, raped, robbed etc. The "get even" part exists in your imagination.
> Just slip out the back door or as the defence teachers will teach the
> smarter people... Fake a faint on the floor.
LOL, sure, play possum, that will work.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's not just a convenience issue. OTC, store brand equivalents of Sudafed
> are
> about five bucks for a box of two dozen doses. Adding a visit to a
> physician
> to get a prescription raises the cost by a factor of eight.
I assume you see your doctor once a year even if you're in good health, so
it's not like you'd need to make a special trip. And once you have a
prescription a phone call is usually all that is needed to renew it.
Happily my prescriptions are all available as generics now, nice and cheap.
One doctor tried to move me to a new brand-name drug awhile back, several
hundred bucks a month as opposed to a fifteen dollar co-pay: I told him to
try again.
> More than that, though, is the utter impossibility of ever stopping the
> drug
> problem by attacking the supply side.
It worked with Quaaludes, the limited number of mfg. meant it was possible
to choke it off. It hasn't totally disappeared but you rarely even hear of
it these days.
> As long as demand exists, someone will
> produce a supply to satisfy that demand.
Sure, the profit motive is a powerful force. But in the case of in effect
synthetic drugs which require certain raw ingredients it's possible to
restrict the supply of those ingredients and thus sharply reduce the
quantity and strength of what appears on the street. This has already
happened with meth, the strength of what is sold on the street has gone down
as restrictions of products containing the raw ingredients have taken hold.
I agree we're never going to stamp it out, but judging by what happened with
Quaaludes we can sure knock it down in a way we will never be able to do
with any drug derived from a plant.
> The only apparent way to
> reduce the demand is by treating it as a public health problem: education
> regarding the dangers, and working to reduce the social conditions that
> make
> drug use seem a desirable way of dealing with life's misfortunes.
Very true, treating drug use as a criminal matter hasn't worked. All we've
accomplished is the enrichment of a huge criminal underworld, and look at
what that's doing to Mexico these days.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You certainly defend theft by force which makes you the moral equivalent
> of the thief doing the work. In fact, as I recall, you claim it is a
> moral good for the government to take from some and give to others -
> presumably
> because you're usually on the receiving end of that deal.
Amazing. For someone who thinks he's so bright, you're remarkably stupid.
Take your medicaid as an example. Where exactly do you think the money comes
from to support people on medicaid? It comes from taxes, taxes paid by
people. Yet for some inane reason, you consider that as 'taking' in the US
version of healthcare, but you do in the Canadian version.
To receive medicaid as I understand it, people have to be indigent and can't
earn a living salary while receiving it. Is that correct? So there they are,
receiving publicly paid for benefits. In the end however you slice it, it's
paid for by other people. Those indigent people receive and they give
nothing back.
In my Canadian system, my health care needs are met sufficiently enough for
me to work and pay taxes. I contribute the best way I'm able back to the
system that supports me. Yet, you seem to find some kind of flaw in that and
call me a thief for it. Seems to me that your way is more costly than my
way.
Oh, and by the way Daneliuk, sending your comments to my inbox *and* posting
those same comments here will only have one effect. It just means that I'll
redouble my comments and attacks to show everybody what kind of deceitful
little money grubbing asshole asshole you truly are. I hope you like it,
because it's only going to get worse.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Agreed. I don't know that I'd support full legalization of everything;
> there
> seems to be substantial reason to restrict some of the more dangerous
> substances. OTOH, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that supports
> regulating marijuana more stringently than we do alcohol. Quite the
> contrary,
> in fact: alcohol seems much the more dangerous of the two.
Yup, decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would cover a lot of
what is being discussed here. Criminal sanctions for traffickers is another
matter, that might very well stay on the books for particularly destructive
drugs like meth or crack.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You guys almost follow a script, don't you. You know, you guys who like
> to get into little flame wars online and who then react badly when it
> doesn't go like they wanted.
Funny how his few lines of comments has you writing whole paragraphs in
response. Looks like your Last-word-itis affliction is approaching terminal.
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Obviously sane and responsible people aren't the problem. The problem
> is criminals, stupid and careless people.
Careful, you're sounding like one of those gun nuts.
> If you let your 8 year-old
> kid "play" with an Uzi, that's criminally stupid.
Letting children play with any sort of firearm is stupid, much less a
vanishingly rare item like an Uzi.
> If you sell 30-odd
> round magazines of Glock ammunition to just about anybody, I would
> consider that ccriminally stupid AND irresponsible too.
But this contradicts your first point. If someone is sane and responsible
then what does it matter if their magazine holds 15 shots or 30? A sane,
responsible gun owner is not going to cause you or society in general a
problem, and if someone is a criminal or a lunatic then surely it is
preferable to keep them from getting their hands on a firearm in the first
place. If some gang banger is pointing a Glock at you, would you feel less
threatened if his magazine held 10 or 15 shots rather than 30?
> So the problem becomes how to avoid getting the means for criminally
> stupid and irresponsible out in the "wild"? Since IANAL, I have no
> idea.
Not being a lawyer certainly doesn't disqualify you from addressing this
issue. There are common sense measures that should be employed to reduce
gun violence. E.g. safe storage laws make sense to me, a gun not in use
should be securely locked up in a steel box that no child or casual burglar
has a chance of opening (which is why states with such laws have seen the
commercial disappearance of wood/glass gun cases). A friend of mine lost a
bunch of guns in a burglary, they were just sitting there in his house, all
the burglars had to do was pick them up. A gun locker available for a
couple of hundred bucks would have prevented that.
Cracking down on dealers with a history of selling guns that end up at crime
scenes would also help. 85% of the gun dealers in the U.S. have never had a
crime gun traced back to them, yet there are dealers who for some reason
have sold guns used in crimes way out of proportion to other dealers in
their areas. NYC has sent hidden-video teams to gun shops in Florida and
Virginia to buy guns in what were clearly straw purchaser deals, where the
person filling out the forms obviously is not the real purchaser, you can
find similar videos on YouTube. I have to think that cracking down on
licensed dealers who facilitate the sale of weapons to people who aren't
supposed to have them would make a difference.
There is also the issue of why people who are supposed to be on the list of
those not allowed to buy guns are not actually there. As we learned after
the Virginia Tech massacre, if the state doesn't add the name of someone
ordered by a judge to undergo psychiatric treatment to the list, then the
results can be horrible. Which brings us to a standard complaint of law
abiding gun owners--first enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the
books rather than talk about new laws, because more laws not being enforced
won't help.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
> situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the teeth,
> from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the first place_
> and found it to be more true than not.
That's different and you know it. You can't really compare a combat
situation in some foreign country to our everyday North American society.
They're two different animals.
Every day in thousands of bars, there's a fight of some kind. Many of those
fights are just with fists, some with knives involved and some with guns. As
you go down the list, the more powerful the weapon, the more likely serious
injury or death will occur. With guns involved, some of those deaths are
going to be innocent bystanders. That doesn't happen when fists are used,
it's unlikely to happen when knives are used, but it surely does often
happen when guns are used.
To me anyway, it's simple logic that the more the powerful weapons that are
around, the greater the devastation. The armed polite society scenario might
have been partially relevant in the old west, but it doesn't have a place in
densely packed cities where the frustrations and stress of everyday living
already takes a toll on people. Everybody having a firearm in such a
situation is just plain crazy.
Some keep quoting to me that the police are not there to project you. Maybe
that's US law, I don't know. It might even be Canadian law for all I know.
What I do know is that those few times I've called for assistance from the
police, they've shown up very quickly and without exception, have gone out
of their way to help me.
DGDevin wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> I've painted with a broad brush on the above. Certainly there exist
>> jurisdictions where some of the above sanctions do not apply, but
>> nowhere are ALL the constraints missing.
>
>> It's a bad hat to be a felon.
>
> I have no problem with restoring rights to cons who have
> overwhelmingly demonstrated that they have reformed and walked the
> straight and narrow since being released. But an automatic
> restoration of the right to own guns simply because the guy hasn't
> been busted for five years doesn't work for me. I want to see pay
> stubs and glowing reports from his PO and lots of character
> references from respected members of the community (no
> politicians)--not just a lack of recent convictions.
> People can clean up, I used to have a guy working for me who had been
> a full-on crack addict who had lost everything. He turned it around,
> he is sober and hard-working and is on good terms with his ex-wife
> and kids, works in a hospital today.
>
> But there needs to be solid evidence of rehabilitation, not just an
> absence of recent arrests. People who choose to commit serious
> crimes have to justify our trusting them again, they put themselves
> in that situation.
Rehabilitation of the offender is certainly one worthy goal. But restoring
his rights, in the mind of some, flies in the face of another goal:
deterrence.
If the would-be goblin thinks the worst that can happen is to (eventually?)
return to his current state, that there is no long-term consequence, he
might be persuaded to wear white before Memorial Day or some other affront
to the sensibilities of normal folk.
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Neither legalized the sale of any drug other than by prescription.
>
> And you are conflating illict _use_ with illicit _sales_. In the
> Netherlands it is not unlawful to buy or use drugs, so for the most
> part use is not illicit. What is illicit is _sales_.
EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess in the
Netherlands.
Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, etc.) are
also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The Netherlands.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
> given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
You say it is wrong, but I don't see the "correct" facts either. Surely you
have them if you are disputing what was presented.
Now look what you have done!
Should have never mentioned the word "the" and it's all your fault. If you
were in more killfilters this wouldn't have happened.
Slap your pee-pee for that. Now hide your head in shame.
Holy smokes. we need to stick with woodworking. At least I can learn more
from the yelling, bitching and back biting. Someday I may buy more equipment
or convert from construction woodwroking mode and it's good to have a few
ideas up your sleeve to start with.
LOL
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Switzerland has more guns per capita than the US and a lower rate of gun
deaths. Columbia has a rate 4-5 times the US. It's the society, not the
tools.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to prison, the
> huge distortions of our laws all to combat street drugs can't actually do
> what they are supposed to do, why are we still doing it, why didn't the
> lesson of the failure of Prohibition sink in?
I only have one response to your idea that drugs, guns, whatever should be
legalized and controlled.
Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And that's
despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated and the money
spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover what will happen to
society if we go the route of legalizing it all and taxing it or whatever.
You think you know, but that's just your opinion. There's the real
possibility is that it could lead to terrible repercussions. Nobody who
tries a habit forming drug wants to become an addict. Yet, there are new
addicts all the time. Pray tell, what will happen when those drugs become
legal and many more people try them out just for recreation.
There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of some
developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all. Until you
can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble conjecture and nothing
else. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the society I live in
being the first to attempt it.
Dont' feed the troll!
http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
---------------------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<nothing of value>
PDFTFT
"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In Canada we don't need to protect ourselves against a perceived enemy.
Say, that's right, and one of your Ministers of Justice even explained that
in Canada there is no such thing as a right of self-defense, Allan Rock was
his name. And if rates of burglary and rape are higher in Canada than in
the U.S., well, that's too bad, but at least those burglars and rapists
aren't getting shot, that's the important thing.
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf
"A few crime rates are higher in Canada than in the United States. In 1993,
the burglary rate in
Canada, at 1,414 per 100,000, was almost 50 percent higher than the US rate
of 1,099 per 100,000. Even
more striking is the comparison between the two countries in sexual assault.
The Canadian âforcible
rapeâ rate, at 121 per 100,000, is much higher than the rate in the United
States, forty-one per 100,000."
> We control the gun crowd fairly well and will tighten the laws as the
> statistics continually prove it working,
Or not working, you'll proceed whether it's working or not.
> and each time we get more out of the hands of the general public. What
> would we need to have a gun at home for anyway? If I used it on a thief
> stealing form my house I would guilty of murder. Once the thief steals
> something the crime is done. Only revenge is left.
What if he's interested in more than theft? What if he wants a little fun
at your expense, or your wife's?
> Some swear it is a God given right to bear arms and yet declare war on
> other countries because they might have bigger weapon (WMD). I guess the
> morality doesn't apply to everybody.
Good grief.
> In the end only the lunatics will have illegal guns.
Well, there will be you, you won't be armed.
A word of friendly advice.
Take the hook out of your mouth. Notice how many love to wind you up and
then call you namesÉ
You have better things to discuss here.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
When somebody whose fingers I stepped on recently is still so pissed off
that he follows me around in threads he otherwise hasn't participated in
just to repeatedly hump my ankle, I think I'm justified in finding that
amusing. And you are amusing, Robotboy, because you take such silly shit so
seriously, you're so obviously out for petty revenge--how could that not be
worth a laugh?
Hey, knock yourself out, better men than you have called me names and I'm
still alive and kicking.
"Josepi" wrote in message news:Oag6p.4265$%[email protected]...
> Sorry, You are bending the stats badly to indicate a false positive for
> your killing instincts.
"Killing instincts"? LOL, that's a bit Drama Queen, isn't it?
Brazil's murder rate today is 22 per 100,000 people, down from 26.7/100,000
a decade ago. Over the same period of time the murder rate in the United
States has declined from 5.5/100,000 to 5/100,000.
Please indicate where I am "bending the stats".
> Brazil brought in some gun controls for a gun crazy population, out of
> control in 2002. In 2003 the gun related deaths reduced by over 10%. I
> can't find further stats for later years as the gun controls are tightened
> up even more. The estimated gun population is about half are unregistered
> and still illegal.
> Lets compare apples with apples and look at gun population vs gun deaths,
> not new regulations vs gun deaths.
When you can offer meaningful refutation of my claim that Brazil's murder
rate is four times that of the U.S., let us know.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
>> dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
>> dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
>
> If there is no supply ...
>
Then you are living on some other planet.
"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> We have discovered that carrying guns leads to more crime and drug usage.
We have discovered you just make up silly shit to post so as not to be left
out of the conversation.
Right beside his home in Fla.
Dont' feed the troll!
http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
---------------------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
pseudoephedrine
in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that bill, and it's not
coming
from "drug industry lobbyists". It's coming from everyday Hoosiers who
suffer
from seasonal allergies and don't want the additional delays and expenses of
having to see a physician in order to buy decongestants that actually work.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
> legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
> pseudoephedrine
> in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that bill, and it's not
> coming
> from "drug industry lobbyists".
But drug industry lobbyists are why the key ingredients in making meth
remained available to the criminal underworld. These websites describe how
the industry's profits were put ahead of public safety, with results we know
all too well. This is especially tragic when you consider that choking off
the supply of raw ingredients worked in suppressing the traffic in
Quaaludes; there was an opportunity to do that with meth, but protecting $3
billion in annual sales of cold medications was apparently more important.
http://www.mappsd.org/Meth%20History.htm
http://www.opb.org/meth/tv/essays/?essay=1
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/interviews/suo.html
> It's coming from everyday Hoosiers who suffer
> from seasonal allergies and don't want the additional delays and expenses
> of
> having to see a physician in order to buy decongestants that actually
> work.
Having to get a prescription and go to the pharmacy counter doesn't seem
like much of a crushing burden to me. I'm on a couple of medications, and
having to get my prescriptions refilled once a year so far hasn't proved
very onerous. Minor inconvenience to people with hayfever vs. depriving
meth labs of the ingredients they need--I have no trouble making that
decision.
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> The rehabilitation back into society of felons, particularly, is just
> about last on the list of things I care about.
Given the number of felons America generates, this is a short-sighted policy
on your part. At any time there are over two million people in prison in
America, and sooner or later most of them get out which is why there are
around eight million felons on the streets. So do you want them going back
to their old ways, stealing your car or selling dope in your neighborhood
and so on, or not?
> There are far too many
> other people whose problems are not self-inflicted that deserve our
> compassion.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the problem of what happens to
cons when they get out of jail.
> As far as I am concerned, felons - particularly repeat
> offenders - should simply be stripped of their citizenship and sent
> off to a penal colony at the end of the Aleutians for the rest of
> their days
Alas, there are these things called rights, some of which can't be stripped
away. Dang Constitution, always getting in the way of productive medieval
policies. Besides, too many Republicans in the Aleutians would probably
cause environmental damage.
> It is the job of government neither to punish nor rehabilitate.
Actually it is, at least in civilized societies. You don't have to like it,
and you can always start a political party and get elected and change the
law, but that's how it stands today.
> It is
> the job of government to minimize the risk and/or damage to the rest
> of us posed by felons and would-be felons.
What, waste my tax dollars protecting you and your property? That's theft,
that's what that is!
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
> not seem to be addictive to me.
I smoked a pack a day from 26-25 years of age. One day I said to myself that
I was tired of the bad taste in my mouth, the sore, dry throat and the
smelly nicotain stained fingures and just quit without any cravings at all
after that. Wasn't difficult at all and some people have told me that if I
quit that easily, then I wasn't addicted. Maybe I wasn't. The only way I can
explain my ease with quitting is that I experience a paradigm shift in
thinking and then it was easy after that. I suspect that even partially,
heavily addicted addicts on other drugs need to experience some type of
similar change in thinking before they have a chance of quitting and staying
quit.
Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of
>> some developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all.
>> Until you can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble
>> conjecture and nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit
>> interested in the society I live in being the first to attempt it.
>>
>
> UK, and more so the Netherlands.
In both cases, illicit use did not diminish. Both countries simply ended up
with more addicts.
DGDevin wrote:
>
>> Because you're advocating gun freedom for everybody, not just you.
>
> No, I am not. I happily agree that convicted felons and people
> adjudicated as mentally unsound should be unable to purchase or own
> firearms. If someone has a habit of committing assault then he's
> probably going to get a conviction serious enough to be denied the
> ownership of guns.
Felons have no need for self defense? I submit that most have a GREATER
need, considering the folks they hang around with.
As for those with a mental health issue, my view is that current law paints
with too broad a brush. As the federal law currently stands, anyone
involuntarily committed to a mental health facility is forever barred from
owning a gun. VERY few mental health maladies could even remotely be
considered threatening. Most personality disorders (Obsessive-compulsive
disorder, Agraphobia, Narcolepsy, Epilepsy, Asperger's Syndrome, and maybe
600 others) present no threat to anyone.
My current squeeze is an intake clinician at a psychiatric hospital.
Patients who come there under warrant get the option to voluntarily commit
themselves, thereby voiding the warrant. She didn't know about the federal
law and now she sometimes advises incoming patients to switch to voluntary
after explaining their intransigence will forever bar them from owning a
firearm.
Of course she doesn't do this for the obviously possessed or insane, but
someone whose asshole relatives insist grandpa is nuts simply because he
thinks everyone smells of elderberries gets the facts.
>
>> People are people with emotions, the instinct to survive and in
>> reality, the greed to take what they can get away with. Yup, that's
>> a pessimistic, cynical view of the human race, but I don't apologize
>> for it in any way shape or form.
>
> People have intellects too, and most of us seem able to grasp that if
> we drive recklessly we will be penalized or denied a driver's license
> or even imprisoned. We don't ban cars because some people drive
> recklessly and cause accidents, we go after those who shouldn't be
> driving.
Good point.
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when
> I don't agree with it, but today's rant about gun deaths
> made we question the "facts" given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the
> last 9 years. That seems to be the total number of gun
> deaths - I seriously doubt all of them occurred at home.
> Just plain wrong there.
>
> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do
> much to reduce the suicide rate.
>
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers
> killing each other? The more that happens, the better for
> the rest of us.
>
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the
> seemingly casual misstatement of statistics, something
> that's become all too common.
>
The number of firearms continues to increase, concealed carry
continues to rise, while the number of firearm related deaths
decreases. All those stories about blood in the streets and
showdown at the OK Corral seem to have been lies.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4dudfaj
Interesting article with lots of good statistics. Haven't had
time to read the whole thing but they seem to be attempting to
use this for more anti-gun legislation while showing the gun
related deaths dropping every year.
Larry
We definitely know why this nym of your 100 is is killfiltered.
You just keep showing up with another one and talk to yourself though.
-----------------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Now you see why he's firmly TWIT filtered here. <g>
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:12:01 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]>
>>> That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
>>> dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
>>> dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
>>
>> Fix the addicts??? What kind of asshole are you? And yeah, you deserve
>> that response for an ingnorant comment.
>>
>> If the capability to 'Fix the addicts' was even half as easy as your
>> assinine comment would suggest, it would have been done already and the
>> dealers would be starving for new users.
>>
>> Any future comments you might have go in the bit bucket despite any
>> validity to them.
>>
>> Asshole. You're a really big fucking asshole. Bet you know it too.
>
>Jeez, Chill!
Now you see why he's firmly TWIT filtered here. <g>
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 2/13/2011 9:42 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josepi" wrote in message news:2%[email protected]...
>>
>>> According to these stats published, USA is way out and beyond almost
>>> any other country in the world. Canada and other gun control
>>> countries have much lower figures including and not including
>>> suicide.
>>
>> Brazil has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. and a murder rate
>> four times higher. Meanwhile Vermont has very loose gun laws (e.g.
>> concealed carry without a permit) and routinely is at the bottom of
>> U.S. crime rates. Obviously things other than gun laws are behind
>> violent crime rates. If you want to bring down violent crime, do
>> something about education, poverty and a booming trade in street
>> drugs, that way you'll actually accomplish something. But disarming
>> people who are extremely unlikely to ever commit a serious crime
>> isn't going to accomplish much at all.
>
> Bingo ...
Obviously sane and responsible people aren't the problem. The problem
is criminals, stupid and careless people. If you let your 8 year-old
kid "play" with an Uzi, that's criminally stupid. If you sell 30-odd
round magazines of Glock ammunition to just about anybody, I would
consider that ccriminally stupid AND irresponsible too.
So the problem becomes how to avoid getting the means for criminally
stupid and irresponsible out in the "wild"? Since IANAL, I have no
idea.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 2/14/2011 12:29 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
>> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start
>> shooting is exactly that, a crock.
>
> Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
> situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the
> teeth, from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the
> first place_ and found it to be more true than not.
<sarcasm>
Too bad for those cases where it wasn't true. How do you assign
responsibility where innocent people were hurt?
</sarcasm>
Yes, I am against irresponsible distribution of lethal means.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 2/14/2011 7:39 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2011 12:29 AM, Upscale wrote:
>>>
>>>> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start
>>>> shooting is exactly that, a crock.
>>>
>>> Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
>>> situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the
>>> teeth, from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the
>>> first place_ and found it to be more true than not.
>>
>> <sarcasm>
>> Too bad for those cases where it wasn't true. How do you assign
>> responsibility where innocent people were hurt?
>> </sarcasm>
>
> Hunt the bastards down who are responsible and provide swift and
> lethal justice?
Now, does that include the POTUS and the Senate?
(I assume you're talking about Vietnam)
>> Yes, I am against irresponsible distribution of lethal means.
>
> I agree, but methinks you need to be more specific with your
> terminology ... much too much room for legal interpretation. :)
Obviously!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> If you sell 30-odd
>> round magazines of Glock ammunition to just about anybody, I would
>> consider that ccriminally stupid AND irresponsible too.
>
> But this contradicts your first point. If someone is sane and
> responsible then what does it matter if their magazine holds 15 shots
> or 30? A sane, responsible gun owner is not going to cause you or
> society in general a problem, and if someone is a criminal or a
> lunatic then surely it is preferable to keep them from getting their
> hands on a firearm in the first place. If some gang banger is
> pointing a Glock at you, would you feel less threatened if his
> magazine held 10 or 15 shots rather than 30?
>
I agree with all you say (snipped or not), but your statement
"But this contradicts your first point."
is not quite true. Unless the seller can indeed guarantee that the
purchaser is sane and responsible. As you later on say, there are many
irresponsible sellers, as is shown by the NYC undercover purchasers. I
agree that those sellers should be punished, with no financial
repercussions to the taxpayer.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of
>>some developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all.
>
> The Netherlands.
>
>> Until you
>>can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble conjecture and
>>nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the society
>>I live in being the first to attempt it.
>
> It wouldn't be.
In the Netherlands they are slowly (it's the Netherlands) coming back
from a too permissive attitude. Firstly, the sleaze is finally having a
backlash in Amsterdam and other bigger cities. Secondly, in cities near
the borders with especially Germany, there are too many less desirables
from outside Holland who come and misbehave. What and how they are
exactly going to accomplish this "pullback", I don't know, since I have
never cared for this type of recreation.
I think the only real legalization I would be for is if there is a way to
determine excessive usage by an individual. Something like being able to
buy only with a credit card tied to a person's identity. <snicker>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
> legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
> pseudoephedrine in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that
> bill, and it's not coming from "drug industry lobbyists". It's coming
> from everyday Hoosiers who suffer from seasonal allergies and don't
> want the additional delays and expenses of having to see a physician
> in order to buy decongestants that actually work.
Amen to that. It is already annoying and embarassing enough to have to
hand over my driver's license whenever I need to get more Zyrtec-D or
generic equivalent. NJ & MA at least, but I think it's a federal rule.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>
> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
> the consequences of your bad choices?
Agree. Giving Mickey Mantle a new liver was a publicity stunt. I hope it
gave people a reason to become donors, but I have my doubts. IMHO, it
stole a good liver from someone who could have really used it. OTOH,
transplants sometimes give the recipient a new disease ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Any ggogleing of "Netherlands Drug Policy" will show that oan walk into
> a restaurant in the Netherlands and buy drugs off a menu.
Only true for a "coffeeshop" a Dutch euphemism for a pot cafe. Restaurant
are different establishments.
> Technically, they are unlawful however the official policy is that the
> law is not enforced. The same is true in Portugal. If you want to call
> something done in accordance with official government policy "illicit"
> go right ahead.
Technically correct. But since jurisprudence is important in Holland, as
it is here in the US, it is difficult to reverse the Dutch laissez faire
attitude that regards soft drugs as tolerated openly.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in 1492032 20110218 181537 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
>>> sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more
>>> than a vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then
>>> you might just possibly be a little more understanding.
>>
>>OK, how about some personal experience.
>>
>>I smoked almost a carton a week from the time I was 18 until almost 60.
>>I did switch from unfiltered to filtered about the middle of that.
>>
>>Just before my 60th birthday I had a heart attack - luckily not a massive
>>one. When I got out of intensive care I went outside, pushing my IV
>>holder, and had my last cigarette. I noticed no physical withdrawal
>>symptoms, just my hand having a reflex action of reaching for my shirt
>>pocket every now and then. That went away in a week or two.
>>
>>I did tell my cardiologist that I missed it and wondered if one cigar a
>>month was admissible. He reluctantly agreed. I adhered to that regimen
>>for 10 years. When I reached 70 I unilaterally decided to let myself
>>have one a week. Been doing that for 4 years. Surely if smoking was
>>addictive to me I would have been rapidly increasing my cigar smoking
>>until it was a constant thing.
>>
>>I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
>>not seem to be addictive to me.
>
> Smoking is a habit, not an addiction.
> I stopped dead at the end of 1975, after 20 years of 30-40 per day, and
> haven't
> had one since.
Some, like anything else, don't get addicted but those are in the minority.
I smoked for many years then switched to Copenhagen for about ten years.
Chewed at work and always found those that walked around spitting in a can
disgusting. I swallowed it. When I quit, I had serious withdrawal symptoms.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And just possibly, my opinions on this matter are correct.
Possible, yes. Likely, no.
"Steve" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gentlemen, you've missed the forest for the trees. The point of the
> Doonesbury strip was not so much about gun control as political
> manipulation.
> A poorly-identified -- yet alien -- enemy attacked the US, causing 3,700
> deaths. Result: ten years of panic, loss of our valued liberties, and a
> chance to get a hand-job the next time you fly.
> In the interveneing years, we've managed to kill [a hotly-debated number
> ranging up to 73 times more] of our own countrymen with weapons somewhat
> less senational than jet airliners.
> Now, why the fuck have we reacted (or over-reacted) to the first
> situation, and been so blasé about the second?
Oh I think many (some?) of us got the point from the beginning. But
predictably the discussion quickly turned down a familiar road, and that's
where we went.
I recall quite a few years ago Newsweek did a cover article about all the
people shot to death in the U.S. in one week, it was over 400 if memory
serves. I couldn't help but notice that the majority were young black men
connected in some way to the illegal narcotics trade. That doesn't mean
their deaths should not cause concern, but it is understandable that most
people would be more impressed by a huge terrorist attack that kills
thousands of people rather than numerous cases of "shot during drug deal"
deaths. And then there is the issue of what would happen to all those gangs
deriving income from illegal drugs sales if the drugs weren't illegal, if
they were regulated in a similar manner to alcohol. Thousands of people
don't seem to get shot every year during bootleg hooch sales in back alleys,
so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would
be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:24:07 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then
>>>>> what?
>>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to
>>>> pay the consequences of your bad choices?
>>>
>>>
>>> Who Decides? You? Me?
>>
>> The new Death Panels.
>
>Sounds about right.
As if any Actuary had -ever- given us a choice...
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
On Feb 17, 3:21=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:38:41 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 1:31 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Documentation please,
>
> >> Cite?
>
> >Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.
>
> Please plonk the troll so we don't have to watch yet another schizoid
> embolism explode here. =A0Thanks.
>
> --
> Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
> simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 -- Storm Jameson
Yabbut..yabbut.....
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:24:54 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so
>>> depressed I considered suicide. Scared the shit out of me. 24 hours
>>> later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit
>>> me.
>>>
>> Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some
>> of the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after
>> having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to
>> sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't
>> remember a thing.
>>
>
>Scary!
Indeed! CW wins the "scary side effects" sub-thread so far, with Mark
coming in second and me third.
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:38:41 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 1:31 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Documentation please,
>>
>> Cite?
>
>Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.
Please plonk the troll so we don't have to watch yet another schizoid
embolism explode here. Thanks.
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
Cigar smoking has been rated differently to insurance company statistics in
the past. Most will tell you "But you don't inhale cigar smoke".
Baloney, I always inhaled and many others do otherwise, why bother?
I have heard different stories from the smoke particles are larger and other
reasons it is not as bad for your health. I quit cigarettes 34 years ago and
have had one Cuban cigar puff since. I am afraid it would escalate for me
and I would be back a full addict again so I do not dare go where I found
extreme pleasure in more cigars.
-----------------------------------------------
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
not seem to be addictive to me.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
DGDevin wrote the following:
>
>
> "Upscale" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> So, you're advocating a wild west frontier justice for this present
>> time frame.
>
> Is that what I wrote? No? Then why are you responding to something I
> didn't write?
>
>> It's all well and good in theory, but the reality is that people are
>> basically greedy, selfish and essentially out only for themselves.
>> That's the animal survival instinct taking over. Those people who
>> don't subscribe entirely to those baser instincts are easily
>> swallowed up by those who do. That's my opinion. And your opinion is
>> just that, an *unproven* opinion for this current age of technology
>> and freedoms. You can't compare what might have happened in the
>> recent past to what could happen now. With biological weapons,
>> nuclear weapons and entire arsenals of offensive arms at hand, what
>> you are advocating is completely ludicrous.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
>
Himself.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Every day in thousands of bars, there's a fight of some kind. Many of
> those fights are just with fists, some with knives involved and some with
> guns. As you go down the list, the more powerful the weapon, the more
> likely serious injury or death will occur. With guns involved, some of
> those deaths are going to be innocent bystanders. That doesn't happen when
> fists are used, it's unlikely to happen when knives are used, but it
> surely does often happen when guns are used.
I've never been in a bar fight in my life, I haven't been intoxicated in
public for twenty years at least, so explain to me why restricting my
ownership of firearms will have the slightest impact on the number of people
shot as a result of fights in bars. This goes to the heart of the
issue--how will restrictions on sane, sober, law-abiding citizens change the
behavior of unstable and/or intoxicated and/or criminal persons? I happily
support laws which target the criminal use of firearms, but I reject laws
which make law-abiding people jump through higher and higher hoops in hopes
that maybe some criminals might possibly perhaps hopefully be inconvenienced
too.
> Some keep quoting to me that the police are not there to project you.
> Maybe that's US law, I don't know. It might even be Canadian law for all I
> know. What I do know is that those few times I've called for assistance
> from the police, they've shown up very quickly and without exception, have
> gone out of their way to help me.
I've had the same experience, but it's irrelevant to what I posted. In the
U.S. there are court decisions confirming that the police are not bound to
protect any individual citizen even when that citizen has called for help
and the police response has been incompetent. The horrific case of Warren
v. District of Columbia is one such example, in which the court said it is a
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are
under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection,
to any individual citizen." Where such a duty has been found by the courts
it is usually in a narrow circumstance, like where the cops have
specifically promised to protect someone or where there is a situation like
the safety of prisoners in a lockup which I believe was raised in one case
in Canada.
Legality aside, it is absurd to imagine that the police will be there to
protect you at the moment you need them, a cop car is unlikely to be passing
in front of your house at the moment a masked burglar carrying a flashlight
and crowbar gets out of his car. The best the police can do is try to catch
criminals so they can be prosecuted, but that is after the fact. At three
in the morning when you wake up to the sound of breaking glass, you're on
your own for at least several minutes even if you manage to call 911.
You're free to rely on alarm signs and motion-activated lighting and a dog
if you please (all good ideas) but that doesn't mean others don't have the
right to the means to defend themselves and their families in their own
homes.
On 2/14/2011 12:29 AM, Upscale wrote:
> That crock that if everybody had a firearm, nobody would start shooting is
> exactly that, a crock.
Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the
teeth, from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the first
place_ and found it to be more true than not.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
DGDevin wrote:
>
> I assume you see your doctor once a year even if you're in good
> health, so it's not like you'd need to make a special trip.
Not necessarily.
When you're young, you go to the doctor when you get sick.
When you become old and decrepit, drooling and incontinent, you go to the
doctor to keep from getting sick.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.
It's as I said before. No ever goes out with the intention to get addicted
to something, whether it's drugs, alcohol, smoking or even caffeine. That
unintended addiction garners little sympathy from many people.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, you're not a troll. It's quite obvious that you suffer from a severe
> form of Last-word-itis.
There's another Irony Meter shot to hell.
> I commiserate with you. I too suffered from Last-word-itis, but my illness
> wasn't nearly as severe as yours. With the aid of a good woman, I was
> instructed in better uses for my fingers and my tongue.
Yikes.
> I approached this education with great zeal and shortly after she started
> teaching me, she pronounced me cured. I've since gone on to a Masters and
> then a Ph.D.
And yet here you are, after informing the world just days ago that you were
done with me, here you are again, and with the added comic bonus of a
lecture on how you no longer want to have the last word. Where else can one
get this sort of entertainment for free?
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail,
>> because theft
>> and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at
>> home
>> should be left alone.
> Nope. In those countries where our illicit drugs are legal, and even
> handed out by the government, there has been no discernable drop in the
> number of folks who obtain their drugs illegally. The only result of legal
> drugs is an increased number of addicts.
This is where you post links to credible sources that make us all say by
golly Heybub is right, for once.
> How many Heroin addicts in your town? In mine, I'd guess about 50,000 (out
> of six million). That's over $7 billion in loss or increased insurance
> rates just for Heroin. Then there's crack, Marijuana, Cocaine, speed,
> meth, and Red Bull.
So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin, eliminating
the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven billion a
year, or a tiny fraction of that?
On Feb 19, 2:18=A0pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> On Feb 19, 3:16 am, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some, like anything else, don't get addicted but those are in the
> > minority.
> > I smoked for many years then switched to Copenhagen for about ten years=
.
> > Chewed at work and always found those that walked around spitting in a =
can
> > disgusting. I swallowed it. When I quit, I had serious withdrawal
> > symptoms.
>
> I'm experiencing a serious gag reflex just thinking about swallowing
> chew/snuff fluid.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------
>
> Point is though that others around me didn't have to see it.
Oh, I understand your reasoning, but, man, talk about taking one for
the team!
I only dabbled in chaw and snuff back in the day, and if any little
bit of it went down the old gullet, I'd feel like I was going to
puke. Do you remember if there was somebody around that you didn't
want to offend the first time you, err, decided not to spit?
R
Here is one on the millions.
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
It is too late for gun controls in the USA for the next 100 years. Look to
Brazil for an example of controls that will take 100 years to become
effective. It's a long process once a culture gets the "shoot somebody"
mentality. The only answer is to get gun ownership levels down and it takes
centuries of kicking hard.
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:140220112216079295%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
Citation, please.
In article <[email protected]>, Josepi
[email protected]> wrote:
Many of these killings are the gun owners own children sneaking in late at
night.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Methadone has been around for over 30 years.
Over 70 years actually, but don't start worrying about accuracy at this late
date.
> Junkies haven't been lining up for it as your assumptions suggest and it's
> not nearly as effective as you seem to think.
Please--quote the words I posted which say junkies line up to get methadone
of their own free will. I'll even leave room for you to do so.
Now that you've done that, quote my words indicating how effective I think
methadone is.
> Just to support your universal Methadone solution, why don't you go get
> some facts on how many addicts eventually go back to their former drug
> life.
And now you get to quote the part where I propose some "universal methadone
solution" or claim any rate of success for the treatment.
> As usual, your uninformed solutions are short sighted, reactionary and
> simple spouting off out of frustration.
I think we've reached the point where I have to ask if you're like this
offline as well, do you routinely make up things other people didn't
actually say and respond to your fabrication rather than what they really
said? Or is this just your standard debating technique online, used in
place of rational arguments backed up by verifiable facts?
> The rec is your sounding board. Fine, let it all out. But for those of you
> who seem think that they 'have the solution', perhaps you should commit
> yourself for awhile. You need it.
And we're back to you informing the rest of the world it is stupid,
delusional, ignorant and so on. How many times in just this thread have you
pulled that stunt? You don't back up your claims with documentation, you
carefully ignore the documentation others offer to support their views, and
whenever you're backed into a corner you announce that the person who
disagrees with you is a dummy of some sort.
Oh, and then you run away, although in this case you couldn't resist coming
back to suggest the world needs to check into a mental health facility for
disagreeing with you.
Seriously, grow up.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go fuck yourself asshole.
And you're back to your home turf, grade school insults (since that's the
best you're capable of).
Let's see, that would make the score:
Everybody Else 99
You 0
Even pulling the goalie is no longer an option Mr. Screen Name. Better luck
next time.
On 2/14/2011 11:24 PM, Josepi said this:
> ...and you will not find anything to convince you that gun carrying is
> not a good thing either.
>
> In Canada we don't need to protect ourselves against a perceived enemy.
> We control the gun crowd fairly well and will tighten the laws as the
> statistics continually prove it working, and each time we get more out of
> the hands of the general public. What would we need to have a gun at home
> for anyway? If I used it on a thief stealing form my house I would guilty
> of murder. Once the thief steals something the crime is done. Only
> revenge is left.
>
> Some swear it is a God given right to bear arms and yet declare war on
> other countries because they might have bigger weapon (WMD). I guess the
> morality doesn't apply to everybody.
>
> In the end only the lunatics will have illegal guns.
>
>
As a former Canadian, allow me to inject some Reality into your foolish
rant. LOTs of people in Canada have guns:
- The Mounties
- The military
- The local police
- The criminals
The only group in Canada that is not so armed are ... the law abiding
citizens, thereby making them easy prey for any of the above...
(I speak, BTW, as someone who lost a close family member to assault and murder
in Canada. Oh how I wish she'd had a gun in her hands that day.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:20:37 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
>with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
>given.
>
>The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
>That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
>of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
Absolutely wrong. But I think he meant "here in the USA" when he said
"home."
>Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
>the suicide rate.
This is true.
>And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
>other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
True, as long as they don't miss and hit an innocent bystander.
>But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
>misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
Hey, they're Liberals. That's what they do. <sigh>
--------------------
--
Remember, in an emergency, dial 1911.
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> If an ex-con has no possible way of working his way back to
>> respectability then surely a powerful motivation for reform is being
>> taken
>> away. We're supposed to love the repentant sinner, remember?
>
> We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a republic. Loving someone
> has nothing to do, one- way or the other - with public policy.
I'm horrified at the thought of religion influencing government, and yet
there are many members of a political party I could name who are willing to
at least pretend that religion and law should be interchangeable. However,
as I'm sure you know, my point was that someone who has sincerely reformed
deserves the opportunity to rebuild his life and have all his rights
restored after he gets out of jail and demonstrates over time that he can be
trusted. It shouldn't be easy, but the path has to be open for someone who
really wants to stay on the straight and narrow.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Further, tax and regulate the drugs so that they are of a standard
> concentration and purity and revenue is being _derived_ from their sale
> rather than _expended_ trying to prevent it. If someone as the result
> of being in an impaired state injures someone else, make _that_ a
> criminal offence. And provide some _real_ drug education in the schools
> and not the obvious propagandizing that goes on now.
One of the motives for repealing Prohibition was that all levels of
government realized the huge tax revenues they'd lost by making booze
illegal. I don't smoke anything, so the idea of people who choose to smoke
cannabis paying taxes rather than me having to pay to fix potholes is highly
attractive to me.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario
> talks about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect
> world doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself.
> You've having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at
> work or just in everyday living.
Obesity costs us countless billions in healthcare costs, so that must mean
there is a compelling public interest in mandatory dieting and exercise with
jail time for those who refuse to lose enough weight. And of course there
is tobacco, clearly prison time for those who refuse to quit smoking is
justifiable. Lots of risky sports out there, something should be done about
those. And so on, it's for your own good and that of society....
> Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
> felt at home again having a drink now and then.
So, organized crime became rich selling bootleg booze because hardly anyone
was drinking during Prohibition?
> But, you're ignoring the downside.
Actually that would be you, in your refusal to consider the impact of
pouring billions of dollars into the hands of organized crime who supply the
demand for illegal drugs.
> How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How many
> deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You might
> shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been a
> member of one of those families so afflicted.
I take drunk driving very seriously, so how about you don't make up
positions I haven't expressed, okay?
> Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like
> the occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have
> a downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive
> drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and
> benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the
> very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without
> exception.
There are illegal drugs in every school in your town, in most workplaces, in
many of the homes you drive past every day. The huge profits in selling
such drugs guarantees that somebody will fill that demand, you cannot stop
it. The War On Drugs is a failure, we couldn't have made drugs much more
widely available if we'd tried. We've distorted our laws trying to suppress
drugs, we've spent countless billions of dollars, we stuffed the prisons
with millions of people and the drugs are still there, and they'll be there
tomorrow. IT HAS NOT WORKED. And it won't work, not ever. You're acting
as if there is this big wall keeping illegal drugs out of our community and
if we tear it down all these drugs will flood in, but the reality is the
drugs are already here. You're in favor of locking the barn door after the
horse is already long gone, it just doesn't make sense. So if one
definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over
while always expecting a different result that never actually occurs, then
the War On Drugs is insane.
Dont' feed the troll!
http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
---------------------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed a
bad choice.
Do try to pay attention.
>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?
Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance. I
think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
health insurance is a poor choice.
Careful, When you disagree with Dougy too many times he puts you on his
"hate list" and publicises it all over the world wide web.
Dont' feed the troll! Have a look at his hobby since 2005.
http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
---------------------------------------------------
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
They want lots of drugs that work for a variety of complaints, and many of
them are available only with a prescription. Are you seriously claiming
that an annual prescription renewal and walking up to the druggist's counter
rather than grabbing a package off the shelf is some serious hindrance to
your health and happiness? Dang, you must be *busy* if that qualifies as a
major crimp in your day.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hellooooooo.... the reason they have $3B in annual sales of cold
medications
is that people want decongestants that work.
On Feb 17, 6:46=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > And here *I* thought YOU, Devvy, were the only smart guy here. You
> > sure try awful hard to come out 'on top'..even 'on top' of useless
> > arguments.
> > Idiot.
>
> Is the concept of "irony" in your lexicon, Robotboy?
I see it bothers you to be called Devvy.
I was waiting for a tray of stuffed peppers to bake, so I had a little
time to waste.
So I did a little Googling and lo and behold DGDevin is an asshole in
LOTS of other newsgroups too.
Same MO, same weak shit, and of course ALL other people are stupid.
Doesn't matter what the topic is, Devvy steers it to a point where he
can claim (often weak) victory.
Devvy likes nothing better than belittling people.
Signs of a bully.
I LIKE beating up on bullies. They need to be taught a lesson. Most of
them, and I have every reason to believe Devvy is one of them, will
run away with their tails between their legs, especially in a real
time situation.
You're an asshole, Devvy... to the core.
Ooopps.. the oven just beeped... have a nice day, Devvy, I shall not
waste any more time today dealing with your transparent weak-ass
trolling. ( I said today.. I may decide to tickle you under your chin
at a later date.)
Josepi wrote:
> Dont' feed the troll!
> http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> "Doug Miller" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting
> out was in
> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is
> indeed a bad choice.
>
> Do try to pay attention.
>
>> What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient
>> insurance?
>
> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver
> had not spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to
> affort insurance. I think you'd agree that choosing to spend your
> money on liquor instead of health insurance is a poor choice.
While there may be some small element of truth in that, I'd further say that
anyone who takes anything you say seriously has made equally bad choices in
life.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Feb 15, 4:03=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>=A0I happily
> support laws which target the criminal use of firearms, but I reject laws
> which make law-abiding people jump through higher and higher hoops in hop=
es
> that maybe some criminals might possibly perhaps hopefully be inconvenien=
ced
> too.
Gun control laws are implemented to take away any threat from over-
taxed rebellious people.
It is about government controlling the masses.
On Feb 13, 1:20=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
> other? =A0The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
Agreed, except when they're rotten shots and manage to take
innocent bystanders with them.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:11:38 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/15/2011 12:52 PM, Upscale said this:
--snip--
PDFTFT
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
> Rob others. Meth, for example.
That's true, but the reason they need to steal to pay for their drug of
choice is that the drug is illegal. The worst street bum you can imagine
can cash in empties at the recycle center or panhandle enough money to buy a
jug of cheap wine, he doesn't need to commit armed robbery to raise a few
dollars. It's illegal drugs that inspire robberies.
> Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose
> control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
Also true, but it seems like the people who want to use meth can get their
hands on it despite it being highly illegal, so I have to wonder why we're
spending billions trying to suppress a drug that almost any moron can make
in his garage.
On Feb 15, 6:44=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote:
> >Gun control laws are implemented to take away any threat from over-
>
> taxed rebellious people.
> It is about government controlling the masses.
> -------------------------------------
> Like we saw in Egypt?
>
> Little boys still seem to need their pacifiers when they get big so
> hand guns and assualt rifles seem to fit the bill.
>
> Lew
Had the military guns been used against the people, the uprising would
have been put down quickly. The 'guns' happened to be with the people.
On Feb 13, 1:36=A0pm, "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Not enough woodworking content.
BD's leg.
On 2/15/2011 1:43 AM, Morgans said this:
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> If you remove drug-related crime - particularly murder - from the numbers,
>> US crime rates are unremarkable in context to other Western powers like,
>> say, Canada. The creation of a contraband market is the single most
>> important reason there is any significant degree of gunfire AND the ONLY
>> reason the thugs can afford to buy very expensive illegal weapons.
>>
>> Legalize guns and drugs. Watch crime rates fall and criminals go broke.
>
> Weak argument.
>
> Ever go to Amsterdam while they were at the peak of their legalized drug movement?
Yes. It was- and is a lovely place. Like all big cities, it has some
issues. So what? There are ghettos in L.A., crime in New York,
and community organizers in Chicago. We don't define these cities
by such pestilence, we look at the city as a whole. Amsterdam
deserves the same.
>
> I have. I would not live in such an environment, much less raise a family
> in any place at all close to that environment. Hell, even live by myself
> in that environment.
>
No one is insisting you do. You need to return the courtesy and stop
demanding the right to tell other people how to live. Incidentally, the
"What About The Children" argument is the first sign of a lost cause. The
conservatives do it, the libs do it, pretty much everyone with an
unsupportable cause does it. The whole society ought not to have to adjust
for your children. It is your job to raise them in whatever society you
choose to live and reproduce.
> I was never so happy to leave a place, not even ten times so.
Then you didn't see the city I did. Yes, there were some lousy
areas. But the Rijksmuseum was incredible. So was the concert
at the Concertgebouw I attended that night, not to mention the
really great restaurants in the area ... all while the eeeeeeeeevil
drug trade was taking place.
Freedom is not possible when one group of citizens are allowed to
jam their views by government force down the throats of others.
I do not indulge in recreational drugs and I don't advocate it,
but I also do not wish to divert the limited resources of the
society from stopping other people from doing so.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.
Documentation please, that Texas, alone in the universe, is able to keep
drugs out of its prisons.
> There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth, the
> other in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national centers
> (drug-free after being released for one year) is six percent.
Cite?
> Compare this to the 30% of released criminals who do not return to prison
> and you'll see that jail has a better outcome than treatment for
> addiciton.
I don't see that because you're pulling numbers out of thin air, and you're
the guy who said the U.S. Coast Guard was in effect the 2nd largest navy in
the world or whatever it was you posted. If you can back up these numbers,
fine, but I'm going to need something other than dimly remembered stats from
some LE seminar in a previous century. To start with you need to show that
convicts who don't go back to prison are not using drugs on the outside, and
the only way to prove that is if they're all peeing in a cup forever.
> Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
> taxpayer money in reduced crime.
People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
consumption don't belong in prison in the first place. If they're holding
up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're doing is using a
street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If you have a couple of
shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while watching The Good Guys it doesn't
cause society any problems, ditto if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save
prison for those who actually harm others.
On Feb 18, 8:12=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now you would probably argue that the money going to his dealer is put BA=
CK
> into the community when the dealer blings up his teeth, but this sort of
> "broken window" economics, so beloved by Keynesians and Democrats, is a f=
law
> of gigantic proportions.
Did you read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell? There was some
interesting stuff in there about the broken window premise, but not
directly about drug dealers and their teeth.
R
On Feb 17, 4:05=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > All your opinions are contingent on anybody giving a rat's ass about
> > your views.
> > Nobody cares what you think, Devin. Nobody.
>
> And yet here you are reading my posts and responding to them like an enra=
ged
> teenage girl who didn't get asked to the prom. =A0So at the very least *y=
ou*
> care. =A0LOL.
So in your twisted mind, if one reads one of your posts it
automatically means the reader cares?
Wow, what a disillusioned ego you have there, Devvy.
THEN, out comes the one thing most fore-front on your mind: raging
teen-age girls. Best you get that checked by a shrink before you do
something illegal.
DGDevin wrote:
>
>> Felons have no need for self defense? I submit that most have a
>> GREATER need, considering the folks they hang around with.
>
> Tough shit for them. They made their choice, and if they're still
> hanging around with jailbirds then apparently they didn't get the
> message.
There three classic reasons for the criminal law of sanctions:
* To protect society from further depredations of the convicted;
* To rehabilitate the offender; and
* To deter others from similar rascally behavior.
Point three is the one I think you refer.
While it is true that felons cannot own a gun, there as a UNIVERSE of
occupations closed to them. They can't be lawyers, doctors, dentists,
nurses, CPAs, professional engineers, and more. They can't own a child-care
nursery or a plant nursery, they can't get a commercial driver's license for
hauling hazardous chemicals, they can't join the military, they can't own or
even work for an exterminating company.
The have a VERY hard time getting bonded, so most occupations handling money
are forstalled. Things like bank tellers, retail clerks, or ticket sellers
at the movie theatre.
They can't vote or hold political office. They can't be involved, even at
the margins, in law enforcement. In some places, they can't even be a notary
public!
I've painted with a broad brush on the above. Certainly there exist
jurisdictions where some of the above sanctions do not apply, but nowhere
are ALL the constraints missing.
It's a bad hat to be a felon.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> The good news is, however, there's no such thing as a long-term
>>> Heroin addict. Three years is the normal life expectancy.
>
>> Dunno where you got that info, but life expectancy is far longer than
>> that, sometimes 40 years.
>> That is at 1 gram at 3-5% per day.
>> Still not a good life choice.
> I grant some may keep going for 40 years. These few are offset, however,
> by those who die during their first use. I guess it all averages out to
> three years.
And you've never been one to worry much if the facts and figures you quote
are right, wrong or just plain incomprehensible.
> I got the information from a week-long class for law enforcement officers
> conducted by the (then) Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
LOL, the guys who hold press conferences to report the seizure of drugs
worth eleventeen gazillion dollars (real street value $111,514.76). Yeah,
there's a source to be trusted without a second thought.
Many of these killings are the gun owners own children sneaking in late at
night. This doesn't happen a fraction of the amount in gun restricted
countries.
"It's their own fault for sneaking in the house late at night, anyway"
"Father Haskell" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 13, 1:20 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
Agreed, except when they're rotten shots and manage to take
innocent bystanders with them.
Looks like Larry is guilty of exactly his own complaint.
It was probably a joke.
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You say it is wrong, but I don't see the "correct" facts either. Surely you
have them if you are disputing what was presented.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
> given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Please -- oh, never mind. You've obviously run out of rational arguments,
> if
> you ever had any to begin with, and the only thing left for you to do is
> to
> attack straw men of your own creation.
>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>
> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
> consequences of your bad choices?
Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
sensitivity. Your words above. Being so cavalier must mean that you don't
make mistakes like your hypothetical person above. That's where my rant came
from. Hope you never have to deal with a similar situation.
On Feb 18, 7:37=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:31:41 -0800, RicodJour wrote:
>
> > I do sense an increasing trend - you've quadrupled your smoking in only
> > 4 years.
>
> Either I can't write or you can't read. =A0My consumption was steady at 1=
a
> month for 10 years - no increase. =A0I then decided to "quadruple" it 4
> years ago and it has been steady at that level for 4 years.
Of there may be a third choice - I could be just teasing you. ;)
> > Check back in periodically so we can monitor your
> > addic...sorry...habi...oops...relaxation? =A0Say every 5 years for the
> > next 30 year. =A0That should give us enough data to draw some meaningfu=
l
> > answers.
>
> If I'm around in 30 years I'll be 104. =A0Living proof that 1 cigar a wee=
k
> isn't harmful :-).
No matter how confident you are of the results, you are still required
to complete the entire study or you will not get the incentive paid
our test subjects. It's a box of Te Amo cigars marked "It's A Boy" if
you're wondering. We got a deal on them.
R
On 2/15/2011 7:39 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> There are voluntary systems like that with which I have no problem. Two
>> such systems are called "insurance" and "charity". It is the "forcing
>> people
>> to contribute at a point of the government's gun" part I have a problem
>> with.
>
> Then for Christ's sake, go and live somewhere that doesn't affect your
> delicate sensibilities. Here all you do is whine and complain how your money
> is being stolen from you. Society includes rich and poor, young and old, the
> healthy and the sick. It isn't as you choose to believe, just the rich and
> powerful. Truth is they wouldn't be able to build shit without all members
> of socety. As far as you're concerned, deserving society is whoever can take
> the most. For a little wimp like you, that should be galling considering
> you're one of the many, not wealthy members of society. You seem to take
> exception to people wanting the right to be healthy and only support it if
> they pay for it.
>
> I once stated that the most important right is to be healthy if at all
> possible. Someone (who for the moment will remain unamed) told me that
> freedom is the most important right. I beg to differ, because illness is a
> prison with it's own set of conditions, worse in many, many areas than just
> a simple lack of freedom. That's my experience and my viewpoint. Deal with
> it.
>
>
This may shock you, but I completely agree that health in some sense, at
least, is the foundation of freedom. But making other people pay for
it by force is unseemly.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> it didn't work with alcohol and it hasn't worked with street drugs. All
> prohibition does is create a criminal underworld to meet the demand for an
> illegal product. Prohibition created The Mob (or at least gave it wealth
> and power unimaginable before Prohibition) and The War On Drugs has
> enriched drug cartels and street gangs that thrive on the trade in illegal
> street drugs. We've spent countless billions of dollars, sent millions of
> people to prison, and distorted the law to the detriment of our liberties
> all for a war we cannot possibly win--why continue when the effort causes
> more harm than the drugs themselves?
So, you're advocating a wild west frontier justice for this present time
frame. It's all well and good in theory, but the reality is that people are
basically greedy, selfish and essentially out only for themselves. That's
the animal survival instinct taking over. Those people who don't subscribe
entirely to those baser instincts are easily swallowed up by those who do.
That's my opinion. And your opinion is just that, an *unproven* opinion for
this current age of technology and freedoms. You can't compare what might
have happened in the recent past to what could happen now. With biological
weapons, nuclear weapons and entire arsenals of offensive arms at hand, what
you are advocating is completely ludicrous.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Yes. It was- and is a lovely place. Like all big cities, it has some
> issues. So what? There are ghettos in L.A., crime in New York,
> and community organizers in Chicago. We don't define these cities
> by such pestilence, we look at the city as a whole. Amsterdam
> deserves the same.
You're full of so much bullshit, it's stifling. Did you read my comment
about safe injection sites? Would you feel perfectly complacent if one was
formed in the building next to where you lived? Would you be perfectly happy
with the drop in resale value of your house because one opened up close to
your where you lived? No sane person would and your suggestion above that
it's just par for the course is nothing but lip service to support your
inane arguments.
> I do not indulge in recreational drugs and I don't advocate it,
> but I also do not wish to divert the limited resources of the
> society from stopping other people from doing so.
Just as long as it doesn't happen where you live eh? Bullshit Daneliuk,
business as usual with your crap.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:32:02 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>?
>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
>> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
>> given.
>>
>> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
>> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
>> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>
>> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
>> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>
>You say it is wrong, but I don't see the "correct" facts either. Surely you
>have them if you are disputing what was presented.
If you're so concerned, Ed, why didn't YOU post them, either?
--
Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills.
-- Minna Thomas Antrim
On 2/16/2011 6:27 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Dont' feed the troll!
> http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> "Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was in
> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed a
> bad choice.
>
> Do try to pay attention.
>
>> What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?
>
> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance. I
> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
> health insurance is a poor choice.
Point Of Order:
Wouldn't a hypothetical owner of the hypothetical liver be
spending their money on *hypothetical* booze?
I'm just hypothesizing here ...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then
>>> what?
>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to
>> pay the consequences of your bad choices?
>
>
> Who Decides? You? Me?
The new Death Panels.
On 2/15/2011 9:12 PM, Josepi wrote:
> You have to love Usenet and how some of these troll types just love to sit waiting for an argument to break out and then offer their insecurity to the world via "Just put him in your killfilters. I did years ago. He's a troll etc...". It's the old
>
> Line in the sand thing "All you guys are with ME, right?...right?" Thing.
>
>
>
> I have been to the USA many times and I find the people very compatible and similar to Canadians. The main difference I do notice is the propaganda constantly bombarding the people of USA regarding defending yourself and the other side of the world all beats their wives, kills their children or cuts off their ears and tortures their dogs. There is a constant hero worship of men with guns portrayed in the movies and TV shows. They keep the people so pumped with hate and anger to distract from any real political issues with the "Right to bear arms" obsession. This gets worse as one travels deeper south into the States.
>
> You don't see this happening in Canada, in my area. The newspaper doesn't have an article about how other cultures are destroying the world ***everyday***. The attempt to keep the populace angry and at war and anxious is missing.
>
> The Americans will always have the right to bear arms against an imaginary enemy that the government and news media has propagandized them with for some political gain. The government dictates what to think for it's own control.
>
A fascinating view. The only violence (and grief that comes with it) my
family ever experiences was in ... Canada.
Guns stop crime. The lack of them encourages it.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Well, we know what happened when Prohibition came in, and it's the same
> thing that's happening now with drugs. We also know that when
> Prohibition was repealed the country did not fall apart as some claimed
> it would. Why should we not expect the same result with drugs?
> And, as has been pointed out, other countries have done it and not
> collapsed.
Other countries have not done it, not to the extent that you are suggesting.
And as far as some of the Scandinavian countries go, we seem to have
testimony from several former people who lived in those countries where it
was *was* legalized was that it was a failure. They couldn't wait to move
away.
Have you ever looked at statements from people living in the region of a
safe injection site? Almost without exception, they've lobbied against
having them in their area and land values have decreased in those areas.
It's patently obvious that honest, law abiding people do not want those drug
freedoms you propose and certainly do not want them where they live. Tell me
Larry, would you want to live a few doors away from such a facility, knowing
that your children had to pass by it every day on their way to and from
school? I sure as hell wouldn't and no one I know would.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Regarding your admittedly cynical view of the human race, your view has
> much to commend it. Assuming that goblins exist, removing firearms from
> the righteous simultaneously removes the ability of the potential victim
> to avoid being an actual victim.
We've had this discussion before and I ended up agreeing with your point of
view about firearms when you pointed out to me that if one could get a
firearm and have it handy for possible protection, then why not? You pointed
out that it was a form of insurance and I couldn't argue with that.
But, this is a different argument. Time and time again, you (and others)
have pointed out that there's all these potential victims waiting to be
tortured, raped, robbed and killed because they didn't have a gun on hand to
protect themselves. I ask you. Who are all these potential victims? Where
are all these potential victims? Not in my building of 200 apartment suites
where if one person knows something, we all do. Gossip is a powerful
communication device.
Being the infinitely small segment of society that building is, I'll look at
it from a citywide perspective. Sure I read about law breaking and see it on
the nightly news. Considering that Toronto is a city of several millions,
the amount of reported crime is perportionately small. Maybe all these
victims you talk about don't report being robbed and raped? Maybe our police
state has kept it quiet? What's the reason? The only answer I can surmise is
that the drive to arm everybody is mostly fear mongering. What else am I to
think?
Perhaps things are different in the US and crime happens to most everybody
all the time? What am I missing?
In article <[email protected]>,
Greg Neill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Not enough woodworking content.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which is why he said "OT:" and you Deleted from the subject line. No donut
>> for you tonight!
>
>Um, no, no I didn't.
Um. *yes* you (or to be more precise, your _computer_) really did.
You use "Outlook Express" as a news reader. It is extremely *STUPID* about
certain matters, and you were just victimized by it's stupidity.
OE thinks that _ANY_ sequence of two letters followed by a colon at the
beginning of a subject line is the equivalent of "Re:" (in English), in
"some language or other", and "helpfully" suppresses that string, so that
when messages are 'sorted by subject', the original and replies are sorted
together. ('Intelligent' message ordering software uses the 'References'
header, and the message-IDs listed there to re-construct the 'conversation'
sequences. Microsoft, as usual, and instead of following the universal
practice, invented their own defective methodology to "embrace and extend"
what everybody else "does right".
> It would appear that he posted twice,
>once with "OT" and once without. It was the without one
>that I took issue.
NOT true. The message-ID shown in the 'References:' header of your
article identifies an article that _does_ have the 'OT:' identifier
on it.
Outlook Express *lied* to you -- you believed the lie, and acted on
the erroneous information it gave you.
While your 'intentions' may have been honorable, the fact of the matter
_is_ that you were absolutely in the wrong.
> I'll have my donut now.
Sorry. All you get are 'cookies'. Unpalatable ones, at that. One more
failing of Outlook Express -- even if you don't like the taste them you
can't say "no thanks, I don't want any."
Using Outlook Express as a newsreader is a BAD IDEA(tm) for many reasons,
including the one that just bit you.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:ccb87ec2-48e0-4c1b-94e6-e5591248574c@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Is the concept of "irony" in your lexicon, Robotboy?
> I see it bothers you to be called Devvy.
A) What connection is there between what I posted and your response? B) Why
would anyone by upset to be called names by an angry imbecile?
> I was waiting for a tray of stuffed peppers to bake, so I had a little
> time to waste.
> So I did a little Googling and lo and behold DGDevin is an asshole in
> LOTS of other newsgroups too.
English translation: your nose is so out of joint that you did a search on
me in hopes of finding something to use as a stick with which to beat me,
you're *that* angry. Sad, or what?
> You're an asshole, Devvy... to the core.
Another *devastating* blow, it's a miracle I haven't thrown myself sobbing
onto the floor, isn't it.
> Ooopps.. the oven just beeped... have a nice day, Devvy, I shall not
> waste any more time today dealing with your transparent weak-ass
> trolling. ( I said today.. I may decide to tickle you under your chin
> at a later date.)
Let's see, *you* are the guy who jumped into a thread you otherwise had no
interest in just to piss and whine about what a bastard I am, but you
maintain that *I'm* the troll. So now we know that you're as ignorant of
logic as you are of irony.
Hey, you know what's really funny, I don't even remember what it was that we
were arguing about that has clearly left such bruises on your ego. Whatever
it was, you obviously haven't forgotten, have you.
I am sorry about your situation but a gun in the hands of a citizen may have
contributed more people into the grief you portray. Was the source of the
weapon ever traced to find if originated from another person thinking they
were protecting themselves.
I know lots of people that own gun, legal and illegal. The obsession with
illegal guns is a sickness.
Our gun controls are in the early stages, in this country. No system is
perfect
Have you been studying self-defence methods long or realy not concerned with
it to make an effort
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
As a former Canadian, allow me to inject some Reality into your foolish
rant. LOTs of people in Canada have guns:
- The Mounties
- The military
- The local police
- The criminals
The only group in Canada that is not so armed are ... the law abiding
citizens, thereby making them easy prey for any of the above...
(I speak, BTW, as someone who lost a close family member to assault and
murder
in Canada. Oh how I wish she'd had a gun in her hands that day.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've painted with a broad brush on the above. Certainly there exist
> jurisdictions where some of the above sanctions do not apply, but nowhere
> are ALL the constraints missing.
> It's a bad hat to be a felon.
I have no problem with restoring rights to cons who have overwhelmingly
demonstrated that they have reformed and walked the straight and narrow
since being released. But an automatic restoration of the right to own guns
simply because the guy hasn't been busted for five years doesn't work for
me. I want to see pay stubs and glowing reports from his PO and lots of
character references from respected members of the community (no
politicians)--not just a lack of recent convictions.
People can clean up, I used to have a guy working for me who had been a
full-on crack addict who had lost everything. He turned it around, he is
sober and hard-working and is on good terms with his ex-wife and kids, works
in a hospital today.
But there needs to be solid evidence of rehabilitation, not just an absence
of recent arrests. People who choose to commit serious crimes have to
justify our trusting them again, they put themselves in that situation.
On 2/13/11 12:36 PM, Greg Neill wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Not enough woodworking content.
>
>
What part of "OT" did you not understand?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 2/13/11 12:20 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
> given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>
> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
> the suicide rate.
>
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>
You know what they say...
There are two ways to tell a lie:
1. tell a straight up, damnable lie or
2. use statistics.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
> given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>
> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
> the suicide rate.
>
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
Not sure you thought this one out. What about the 90% of the time when
they just wound each other, to say nothing of what it would say about
our society if this were encouraged? Do you want your downtown district
to be the O-K coral... lol
Bill
>
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:02:19 -0500, Bill wrote:
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
>> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>
> Not sure you thought this one out. What about the 90% of the
time when
> they just wound each other, to say nothing of what it would say about
> our society if this were encouraged? Do you want your downtown district
> to be the O-K coral... lol
Most downtown districts of any size already are :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:06:46 -0500, Josepi wrote:
> Drugs don't make gun related deaths OK, anyway. Does the right to bare
> arms cause drug addiction?
My doctor doesn't want me to bare arms - says it causes skin cancer :-).
Switzerland has more guns per capita than the US and a lower rate of gun
deaths. Columbia has a rate 4-5 times the US. It's the society, not the
tools.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:32:02 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
>> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
>> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>
> You say it is wrong, but I don't see the "correct" facts either. Surely
> you have them if you are disputing what was presented.
I looked at several sites that all had the total gun deaths per year in
the US at around 30,000. Those are the "correct" facts. As for whether
they all occurred at home, I stated as an opinion, one that should be
self-evident to most folks.
If you're still curious, both the FBI and CDC web sites have all the data
you would ever need.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:04:33 -0800, DGDevin wrote:
> So if it's three in the morning and you just woke to the sound of
> breaking glass on the other side of your home and you'd rather have a
> telephone than a gun, okay, that's your right. But don't presume to
> impose your beliefs on the rest of the world.
That pretty much says it all.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot would
>be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs.
On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at
least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place
is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose
actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause
demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for
jailing recreational drug users?
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Not enough woodworking content.
>
>
Which is why he said "OT:" and you Deleted from the subject line. No donut
for you tonight!
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>>so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot
>>would
>>be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs.
>
> On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing
> at
> least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first
> place
> is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose
> actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause
> demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there
> for
> jailing recreational drug users?
Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
Rob others. Meth, for example.
Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control
and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve wrote:
>
>>
>> The second? well, who the Hell cares about onesie-twosies? Or
>> the crazy mom who just popped off her two kids while dad was off
>> fighting one of those wars... Because it's a god-damned American
>> constitutional right to own a gun!
>>
>
> Oh geezus... Why don't you rave about the deranged moms who roll their
> cars into rivers with the kids strapped into the back seats? Is it a
> little less convenient for you to rant about owning cars in the face of
> this kind of thing?
>
Yarbut if she had to ride a bus it wouldn't have happened ...
Trains are no good, 'cause you can always tie the toddlers to the tracks.
Light rail will have to go, in fact, All rail! Horses might not be bad, but
you don't want the temptation of manure piles ...
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Actually, many of us have lived out that very scenario in combat
>> situations _in units full of angry, radical draftees, armed to the teeth,
>> from all walks of life that didn't want to be there in the first place_
>> and found it to be more true than not.
>
> That's different and you know it. You can't really compare a combat
> situation in some foreign country to our everyday North American society.
> They're two different animals.
>
> Every day in thousands of bars, there's a fight of some kind. Many of
> those fights are just with fists, some with knives involved and some with
> guns. As you go down the list, the more powerful the weapon, the more
> likely serious injury or death will occur. With guns involved, some of
> those deaths are going to be innocent bystanders. That doesn't happen when
> fists are used, it's unlikely to happen when knives are used, but it
> surely does often happen when guns are used.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but innocent bystanders have been killed or
injured in fist fights.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to prison, the
>> huge distortions of our laws all to combat street drugs can't actually do
>> what they are supposed to do, why are we still doing it, why didn't the
>> lesson of the failure of Prohibition sink in?
>
> I only have one response to your idea that drugs, guns, whatever should be
> legalized and controlled.
>
> Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And that's
> despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated and the money
> spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover what will happen to
> society if we go the route of legalizing it all and taxing it or whatever.
> You think you know, but that's just your opinion. There's the real
> possibility is that it could lead to terrible repercussions. Nobody who
> tries a habit forming drug wants to become an addict. Yet, there are new
> addicts all the time. Pray tell, what will happen when those drugs become
> legal and many more people try them out just for recreation.
>
> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of some
> developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all. Until you
> can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble conjecture and
> nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the society I
> live in being the first to attempt it.
>
UK, and more so the Netherlands.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> UK, and more so the Netherlands.
>
> Yes? Cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, ecstasy, heroine? Are you
> telling me they're all legal?
At one point in time, all those were legal or at least some legal and some
decriminalized.
It was a failure. They were forced to put more restraints in place. I was
there, and saw people sitting around parks in plain view downtown, shooting
heroine between their toes. Filth everywhere, as were so many shady people,
all I wanted to know was how quickly I could get the family out of town.
--
Jim in NC
In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>so perhaps a really good way to reduce the number of deaths by gunshot
>>>would
>>>be to take away the profit motive from sellers of illegal drugs.
>>
>> On top of that, I think there's a moral argument to be made for legalizing at
>> least some drugs: the whole reason we have laws, and jails, in the first place
>> is to protect society by removing from our midst for a time those whose
>> actions cause harm to others. Since recreational drug use does not cause
>> demonstrable harm to society at large, what moral justification is there for
>> jailing recreational drug users?
>
>
>Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
>Rob others. Meth, for example.
But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal.
>
>Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control
>and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft
and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home
should be left alone.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of some
>developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it all.
The Netherlands.
> Until you
>can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble conjecture and nothing
>else. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in the society I live in
>being the first to attempt it.
It wouldn't be.
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/14/2011 11:17 PM, Upscale wrote:
>>> "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> the billions of dollars spent, the millions of people sent to
>>>> prison, the huge distortions of our laws all to combat street
>>>> drugs can't actually do what they are supposed to do, why are we
>>>> still doing it, why didn't the lesson of the failure of
>>>> Prohibition sink in?
>>>
>>> I only have one response to your idea that drugs, guns, whatever
>>> should be legalized and controlled.
>>>
>>> Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And
>>> that's despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated
>>> and the money spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover
>>> what will happen to society if we go the route of legalizing it all
>>> and taxing it or whatever. You think you know, but that's just your
>>> opinion. There's the real possibility is that it could lead to
>>> terrible repercussions. Nobody who tries a habit forming drug wants
>>> to become an addict. Yet, there are new addicts all the time. Pray
>>> tell, what will happen when those drugs become legal and many more
>>> people try them out just for recreation.
>>>
>>> There hasn't been and you can't show me one successful instance of
>>> some developed country doing what you propose and legalizing it
>>> all. Until you can do that, whatever you have to say is just feeble
>>> conjecture and nothing else. And no, I'm not the least bit
>>> interested in the society I live in being the first to attempt it.
>>>
>>>
>> What about alcohol addiction? Caffeine addiction? Refined sugar
>> addiction? Tobacco addiction? (Completely legal) prescription drug
>> addiction?
>
> Actually he's right, we don't know what will happen. But we don't
> know what will happen with most social programs. Didn't stop us from
> implementing them.
>
> In the US drugs were completely legal prior to 1906. We had a
> functioning, more or less civil society then. Why would we not have
> one that is at least as well functioning and more or less civil now?
life, people, morals, and general ethics of society's lessened personal
responsiblity beliefs have changed to the detriment. in the general case, of
course.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:24:08 -0500, Josepi wrote:
> ...and you will not find anything to convince you that gun carrying is
> not a good thing either.
>
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> news:140220112253253574%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca... There is
> nothing that I can find on that page about children sneaking in late at
> night.
IOW, you made it up with no facts to back you up.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:17:42 -0500, Upscale wrote:
> Right now we have a functioning, more or less civil society. And that's
> despite the amount of people who are presently incarcerated and the
> money spent on crime prevention. You have no idea whatsover what will
> happen to society if we go the route of legalizing it all and taxing it
> or whatever. You think you know, but that's just your opinion.
Well, we know what happened when Prohibition came in, and it's the same
thing that's happening now with drugs. We also know that when
Prohibition was repealed the country did not fall apart as some claimed
it would. Why should we not expect the same result with drugs?
And, as has been pointed out, other countries have done it and not
collapsed.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 2/15/11 2:50 PM, Greg Neill wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Greg Neill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Not enough woodworking content.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which is why he said "OT:" and you Deleted from the subject line. No donut
>> for you tonight!
>
> Um, no, no I didn't. It would appear that he posted twice,
> once with "OT" and once without. It was the without one
> that I took issue. I'll have my donut now.
>
OE kindly did that for you, it is broken as a newsreader.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>> massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all
>> have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the
>> process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself
>> senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if
>> he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is
>> entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people
>> have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose
>> to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves
>> unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so.
>
>And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks
>about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world
>doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've
>having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or
>just in everyday living.
That depends on the extent of the use. Occasional recreational use of
marijuana (or most other drugs) is not noticeably damaging to family,
colleagues, or the fabric of society. The larger point is, should abuse be a
*crime*, or regarded as a public health problem? I argue for the latter.
>
>Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
>felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the
>downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism?
But should that be a crime?
If so, then since adultery also destroys families, should it also be a crime?
If not, then why should similar [ab]use of marijuana or cocaine be a crime?
>How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving?
What is (or should be) the crime here, getting drunk, or driving while drunk?
The problem isn't the alcohol, the problem isn't the drinker getting drunk --
the problem is the drinker getting drunk and then driving. If you get drunk at
home, or get drunk at a bar and take a cab home, it's no business of mine, or
society's -- you're not endangering anyone else. Why should getting stoned be
treated any differently?
>You
>might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been
>a member of one of those families so afflicted.
I've seen what alcoholism has done to several co-workers. But IMO it should be
treated as a medical problem, and not as a crime. Why should abuse of any
other drug be regarded any differently?
>
>Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the
>occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a
>downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive
>drinking.
I think that's debatable; excessive drinking is responsible for many tens
of thousands of deaths each year in the U.S. And much of the downside of the
use of habit-forming drugs -- the crimes that accompany their use -- is the
result of the use itself being a crime. *Exactly the same* problems occurred
during the American experiment with prohibition of alcohol in the early part
of the 20th century. Repeal of Prohibition ended most of the crime associated
with alcohol use.
>The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and
>benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the
>very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without
>exception.
Perhaps so. But what we're doing now isn't working any better than it worked
90 years ago when we tried to do the same thing with alcohol. ISTM that it's
time to try something different.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
>> Rob others. Meth, for example.
>
>That's true, but the reason they need to steal to pay for their drug of
>choice is that the drug is illegal. The worst street bum you can imagine
>can cash in empties at the recycle center or panhandle enough money to buy a
>jug of cheap wine, he doesn't need to commit armed robbery to raise a few
>dollars. It's illegal drugs that inspire robberies.
>
>> Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose
>> control and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
>
>Also true, but it seems like the people who want to use meth can get their
>hands on it despite it being highly illegal, so I have to wonder why we're
>spending billions trying to suppress a drug that almost any moron can make
>in his garage.
And therein lies a large part of the problem. Prohibition didn't work, in
part, because any fool can make alcohol, too -- and since the basic
ingredients needed (water, sugar, and yeast) are also essential to making
bread, it's not possible to restrict their sale. Likewise, any fool can grow
marijuana -- it's called "weed" for a reason.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:52:20 -0500, Upscale wrote:
> I (later) grew up in a small town where
>> pretty much EVERYONE had guns (I had semiauto pistols as a teen). That
>> kind of extreme violence was almost unheard of.
>
> BULLSHIT! You must be pretty damned old then, were living in an
> extremely remote northern location or are a native American.
Much as I hate to defend Tim (I wouldn't even see his posts if you guys
would quit responding), he didn't need a remote location. All he had to
do was grow up in the South. I did. And I walked into a store and
bought a .38 revolver when I was 13 or 14. Nobody thought there was
anything wrong with that. Luckily I never had to use it.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:50:06 -0500, Greg Neill wrote:
>> Which is why he said "OT:" and you Deleted from the subject line. No
>> donut for you tonight!
>
> Um, no, no I didn't. It would appear that he posted twice, once with
> "OT" and once without. It was the without one that I took issue. I'll
> have my donut now.
I never posted without the OT - I responded to one or more posts that had
removed the OT without putting it back so my response would show up in
the right thread.
This post is an example of that.
And I think we've beat the subject to death. All I did originally was
comment about a comic strip.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:03:00 -0800, DGDevin wrote:
> Brazil's murder rate today is 22 per 100,000 people, down from
> 26.7/100,000 a decade ago. Over the same period of time the murder rate
> in the United States has declined from 5.5/100,000 to 5/100,000.
>
> Please indicate where I am "bending the stats".
"Josepi" seems to make up numbers as he goes along. I've finally learned
to ignore him.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Perhaps so. But what we're doing now isn't working any better than it worked
>> 90 years ago when we tried to do the same thing with alcohol. ISTM that it's
>> time to try something different.
>
>Quite possibly. The only flaw in your argument is that legalizing and
>controlling all drugs as has been suggested is not the answer. Suggest
>something else. What you are suggesting is just the last recourse of
>grasping at straws for a solution.
Agreed. I don't know that I'd support full legalization of everything; there
seems to be substantial reason to restrict some of the more dangerous
substances. OTOH, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that supports
regulating marijuana more stringently than we do alcohol. Quite the contrary,
in fact: alcohol seems much the more dangerous of the two.
>
>There's a marked difference between a crazed methamphetamine user and an
>angry drunk. Any day of the year, I'd face a mean angry drunk over an angry
>speed user. Many might equate the two as similar problems and apply similar
>solutions, but I'm not one of them. They're at the opposite ends of the
>spectrum when it comes to addictions as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps, but IMO abuse of either one should be treated as a medical issue, and
widespread use regarded as a public health issue -- not as a crime.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison
>> population.
>
>Not a solution I'd want to support because prison has it's own heavy tolls
>on society and the economy, but it would certainly be one of my choices far
>above that of decriminalizing drugs.
But why lock up the *users*? In many cases, they're victims, too. Lock up the
*dealers*.
A fellow I used to carpool with had an innovative solution: Get rid of all the
drug laws. All of them. Except for this one: make a list of banned drugs; if
you're caught with anything on the list, whatever you have, you eat.
Possession of small amounts for personal use would be effectively
decriminalized; after all, the guy was planning to eat it anyway. And
narcotics dealing would carry an instantaneous capital sentence.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> And therein lies a large part of the problem. Prohibition didn't work, in
>> part, because any fool can make alcohol, too -- and since the basic
>> ingredients needed (water, sugar, and yeast) are also essential to making
>> bread, it's not possible to restrict their sale. Likewise, any fool can grow
>> marijuana -- it's called "weed" for a reason.
>
>The govt. had a chance to cut off meth at the knees, but drug industry
>lobbyists kept the products used to make meth over-the-counter, where any
>moron could buy or steal them.
>
I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy pseudoephedrine
in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that bill, and it's not coming
from "drug industry lobbyists". It's coming from everyday Hoosiers who suffer
from seasonal allergies and don't want the additional delays and expenses of
having to see a physician in order to buy decongestants that actually work.
"Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Greg Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Not enough woodworking content.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which is why he said "OT:" and you Deleted from the subject line. No
>> donut
>> for you tonight!
>
> Um, no, no I didn't. It would appear that he posted twice,
> once with "OT" and once without. It was the without one
> that I took issue. I'll have my donut now.
>
>
Cake or filled?
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so
>> depressed I considered suicide. Scared the shit out of me. 24 hours
>> later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit
>> me.
>>
> Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some
> of the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after
> having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to
> sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't
> remember a thing.
>
Scary!
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> So what would it cost to supply those addicts with legal heroin,
>> eliminating the need for them to steal to support their addiction? Seven
>> billion a year, or a tiny fraction of that?
>
> Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol was
> given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how quickly
> that would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost? Think about
> it. Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol would be
> compounded many times when compared to habit forming drugs.
>
Alcohol and tobacco are both habit forming.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
>> reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
>> feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
>> when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we
>> should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
>> There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
>> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
>> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
>
> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
> than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> We need to lock MORE of them up, not find ways to reduce the prison
>>> population.
>>
>>Not a solution I'd want to support because prison has it's own heavy tolls
>>on society and the economy, but it would certainly be one of my choices
>>far
>>above that of decriminalizing drugs.
>
> But why lock up the *users*? In many cases, they're victims, too. Lock up
> the
> *dealers*.
>
> A fellow I used to carpool with had an innovative solution: Get rid of all
> the
> drug laws. All of them. Except for this one: make a list of banned drugs;
> if
> you're caught with anything on the list, whatever you have, you eat.
>
> Possession of small amounts for personal use would be effectively
> decriminalized; after all, the guy was planning to eat it anyway. And
> narcotics dealing would carry an instantaneous capital sentence.
They did something similar with cigarette smoking when I was in basic
training. If you got caught smoking when you were not allowed to do so, you
were taken into the latrine and a bucket was placed on your head. A wool
blanket soaked in hot water was thrown over the bucket and a carton of
cigarettes and a lighter handed under the blanket with a direct order to
smoke them all. This punishment was watched by everyone else. After seeing
the result, no one who watched this ever got caught no mater how addicted
they were. And, AFAIK, the 'demonstrator' never even smoked again.
Just getting detailed to wash the guy down and get him to the infirmary was
bad enough!
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"DGDevin" <[email protected]>
>>> massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all
>>> have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the
>>> process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself
>>> senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if
>>> he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is
>>> entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people
>>> have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they
>>> choose
>>> to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves
>>> unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so.
>>
>>And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario
>>talks
>>about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world
>>doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've
>>having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or
>>just in everyday living.
>
> That depends on the extent of the use. Occasional recreational use of
> marijuana (or most other drugs) is not noticeably damaging to family,
> colleagues, or the fabric of society. The larger point is, should abuse be
> a
> *crime*, or regarded as a public health problem? I argue for the latter.
>>
>>Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
>>felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the
>>downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism?
>
> But should that be a crime?
> If so, then since adultery also destroys families, should it also be a
> crime?
> If not, then why should similar [ab]use of marijuana or cocaine be a
> crime?
>
>>How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving?
>
> What is (or should be) the crime here, getting drunk, or driving while
> drunk?
> The problem isn't the alcohol, the problem isn't the drinker getting
> drunk --
> the problem is the drinker getting drunk and then driving. If you get
> drunk at
> home, or get drunk at a bar and take a cab home, it's no business of mine,
> or
> society's -- you're not endangering anyone else. Why should getting stoned
> be
> treated any differently?
When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ?
> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2/15/2011 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The second? well, who the Hell cares about onesie-twosies? Or
>>>>> the crazy mom who just popped off her two kids while dad was off
>>>>> fighting one of those wars... Because it's a god-damned American
>>>>> constitutional right to own a gun!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh geezus... Why don't you rave about the deranged moms who roll their
>>>> cars into rivers with the kids strapped into the back seats? Is it a
>>>> little less convenient for you to rant about owning cars in the face
>>>> of this kind of thing?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yarbut if she had to ride a bus it wouldn't have happened ...
>
> Sure, but if she had a gun she could hijack it and put 40 people into the
> lake. I won't ride a bus in a state with lax gun laws just for that
> reason.
What about the train?
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> * Where are we going to get enough horses, and
>> * What will we do with all the horse shit?
>
> Well, in this day and age, methane gas is a viable business opportunity.
>
And Manure is Green.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:
>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but innocent bystanders have been killed
>>> or injured in fist fights.
>>
>> Of course it has, but it's an unlikely occurrence.
>
> Okay, sorry to bust your bubble, a case can be made that these "innocent
> bystanders" are not entirely "innocent." If they go to a bar having a
> reputation of out-of-control patrons, some liability attaches to their
> choice. On the other hand, you almost never hear of a gunfight at a
> church.
>
> Further, the number of innocent bystanders killed, or even wounded, in a
> gunfight is vanishingly small.
>
> Now I know what you'll say: "If only one death is prevented..." or words
> to that effect. In my view, that's arguing from a false premise. In a
> gunfight, BOTH participants probably needed killing!
>
> As things work out, one is dead and the other is (usually) locked up for
> life.
>
> Perhaps we need MORE gunfights, not fewer. If so, common sense tells one
> that you can't have a gunfight without guns.
>
And don't bring a knife to one.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> UK, and more so the Netherlands.
>>
>> Yes? Cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamines, ecstasy, heroine? Are you
>> telling me they're all legal?
>
> At one point in time, all those were legal or at least some legal and some
> decriminalized.
>
> It was a failure. They were forced to put more restraints in place. I
> was there, and saw people sitting around parks in plain view downtown,
> shooting heroine between their toes. Filth everywhere, as were so many
> shady people, all I wanted to know was how quickly I could get the family
> out of town.
> --
> Jim in NC
Portland, Oregon 2011.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>
Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
consequences of your bad choices?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:08:31 -0500, Upscale wrote:
> And maybe, just perhaps, there's millions of people who enjoy the fact
> that crime and intruders coming through the door is an unlikely
> occurrence and live their peaceful, everyday lives in serene content.
I've been driving for 60 years and was never at fault in an accident. I
still buy car insurance.
I've owned a home for 50 years without any problems. I still buy
homeowners insurance.
I've never had anyone try to break into my house. But I have insurance
for that as well.
Does this mean I don't live a serene, contented life ?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:44:58 -0800, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"DGDevin" <[email protected]>
<snip of 55 lines - one line addition below>
> When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
Please take the time to snip (no, I didn't say snipe).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <%[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>>
>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
>> consequences of your bad choices?
>
>Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad choice?
Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed a
bad choice.
Do try to pay attention.
>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?
Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance. I
think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
health insurance is a poor choice.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> We have discovered that carrying guns leads to more crime and drug usage.
>
>We have discovered you just make up silly shit to post so as not to be left
>out of the conversation.
>
PDFTFT
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
>> legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
>> pseudoephedrine
>> in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that bill, and it's not
>> coming
>> from "drug industry lobbyists".
>
>But drug industry lobbyists are why the key ingredients in making meth
>remained available to the criminal underworld. These websites describe how
>the industry's profits were put ahead of public safety, with results we know
>all too well. This is especially tragic when you consider that choking off
>the supply of raw ingredients worked in suppressing the traffic in
>Quaaludes; there was an opportunity to do that with meth, but protecting $3
>billion in annual sales of cold medications was apparently more important.
Hellooooooo.... the reason they have $3B in annual sales of cold medications
is that people want decongestants that work.
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/16/2011 6:27 PM, Josepi wrote:
>> Dont' feed the troll!
>>
> http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Dou
>g+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=20
>11&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> "Doug Miller" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was in
>> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed a
>> bad choice.
>>
>> Do try to pay attention.
>>
>>> What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?
>>
>> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
>> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance. I
>> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
>> health insurance is a poor choice.
>
>Point Of Order:
>
>Wouldn't a hypothetical owner of the hypothetical liver be
>spending their money on *hypothetical* booze?
.. *hypothetical* money ...
<g>
>
>I'm just hypothesizing here ...
groan.
In article <F3%[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was in
>> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed a
>> bad choice.
>
>Oh, excuse. I didn't realize you were so perfect and never made a bad choice
>in your life.
Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.
> And more surely, you've never tried a cigeratte or had a drink
>in your life.
Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.
>Of course you've never been drunk either.
Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.
>And when you were a
>teenager all exuberant with life, you never intentionally went over the
>speed limit at the wrong time and place killing yourself.
Please -- oh, never mind. You've obviously run out of rational arguments, if
you ever had any to begin with, and the only thing left for you to do is to
attack straw men of your own creation.
<plonk>
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Hellooooooo.... the reason they have $3B in annual sales of cold medications
>> is that people want decongestants that work.
>
>They want lots of drugs that work for a variety of complaints, and many of
>them are available only with a prescription. Are you seriously claiming
>that an annual prescription renewal and walking up to the druggist's counter
>rather than grabbing a package off the shelf is some serious hindrance to
>your health and happiness? Dang, you must be *busy* if that qualifies as a
>major crimp in your day.
You're apparently one of the fortunate ones who's never had a major -- and
sudden -- allergy attack.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> Want to compare this to alcohol? Imagine what would happen if alcohol
>>> was given freely to those to asked for it. Do you have any idea how
>>> quickly that would become an unsistainable act and what it would cost?
>>> Think about it. Any possible scenario you might propose for alcohol
>>> would be compounded many times when compared to habit forming drugs.
>
>
>> Alcohol and tobacco are both habit forming.
>
> And based on the number of people who become addicted to them, they're
> more dangerous than heroin.
Tobacco is reputed to be more difficult to kick than heroin. Five years for
me on May 1st.
The most difficult part of the quitting process for any of them is Admitting
you Have an Addiction. Not just a bad habit, not something you can quit
whenever you want, the same thing the heroin addict nodding off on the curb
has, An Addiction.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I live in Indianapolis; there's a bill being debated in the Indiana
>> legislature right now that would require a prescription to buy
>> pseudoephedrine in Indiana. There is considerable opposition to that
>> bill, and it's not coming from "drug industry lobbyists". It's coming
>> from everyday Hoosiers who suffer from seasonal allergies and don't
>> want the additional delays and expenses of having to see a physician
>> in order to buy decongestants that actually work.
>
> Amen to that. It is already annoying and embarassing enough to have to
> hand over my driver's license whenever I need to get more Zyrtec-D or
> generic equivalent.
Flashing back to 16 and having to ask for condoms ...
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:31:46 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
>>>> reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
>>>> feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
>>>> when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that
>>>> we
>>>> should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
>>>> There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
>>>> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
>>>> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil
>>>> claim.
>>>
>>> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
>>> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than
>>> once)
>>> than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
>>
>>Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.
>
> That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
> dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
> dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
If there is no supply ...
Say, whatever happened to stopping the flow from Afghanistan. Taliban was
better at that.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]>
>> That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
>> dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
>> dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
>
> Fix the addicts??? What kind of asshole are you? And yeah, you deserve
> that response for an ingnorant comment.
>
> If the capability to 'Fix the addicts' was even half as easy as your
> assinine comment would suggest, it would have been done already and the
> dealers would be starving for new users.
>
> Any future comments you might have go in the bit bucket despite any
> validity to them.
>
> Asshole. You're a really big fucking asshole. Bet you know it too.
>
>
>
Jeez, Chill!
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
>>> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than
>>> once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
>
>> Rehab is 30k/month.
>
> Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?
>
Nope. Hazelden. And they also get criminals and You pay the 30k.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>
> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay the
> consequences of your bad choices?
Who Decides? You? Me?
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <%[email protected]>,
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>>>
>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
>>> the
>>> consequences of your bad choices?
>>
>>Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
>>choice?
>
> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
> in
> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
> a
> bad choice.
>
> Do try to pay attention.
>
>>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?
>
> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance.
> I
> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
> health insurance is a poor choice.
For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>>>>
>>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
>>>> the
>>>> consequences of your bad choices?
>>>
>>>Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
>>>choice?
>>
>> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
>> in
>> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
>> a
>> bad choice.
>>
>> Do try to pay attention.
>>
>>>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?
>>
>> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
>> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance.
>> I
>> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
>> health insurance is a poor choice.
>
>
>For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.
There is always a choice.
On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
> Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
> sensitivity.
This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
their shop dog.
The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back
to the groin, and painted cherry.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On 2/17/11 10:15 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, frozenNorth123
> @gm.nospam.ail.com says...
>>
>> On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
>>> sensitivity.
>>
>> This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
>> their shop dog.
>>
>> The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back
>> to the groin, and painted cherry.
>
> And pukey ducks. Can't forget the pukey ducks.
>
I forgot pointy sticks too, my humblest of apologies.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>You're apparently one of the fortunate ones who's never had a major -- and
>> sudden -- allergy attack.
>
>If it's that serious a condition for you I'm surprised you don't carry a
>couple of doses of the effective medication with you all the time, that you
>rely on being able to dash into a store when the allergies strike. I get
>three-month supplies of my prescriptions send to me in the mail so there is
>never any danger of running out, and all it takes is a phone call to my
>doctor to get them renewed annually, I haven't stood in line at a drugstore
>in years. I appreciate the severity of your condition, my wife suffers from
>allergies in the spring. It just seems to me that a little foresight would
>make right-this-minute purchases unnecessary.
It's not just a convenience issue. OTC, store brand equivalents of Sudafed are
about five bucks for a box of two dozen doses. Adding a visit to a physician
to get a prescription raises the cost by a factor of eight.
More than that, though, is the utter impossibility of ever stopping the drug
problem by attacking the supply side. As long as demand exists, someone will
produce a supply to satisfy that demand. The demand may shift to other
intoxicants, but as long as there is a demand, there will always be a supply.
Treating the demand as a criminal issue doesn't work. The only apparent way to
reduce the demand is by treating it as a public health problem: education
regarding the dangers, and working to reduce the social conditions that make
drug use seem a desirable way of dealing with life's misfortunes.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
>consumption don't belong in prison in the first place.
Exactly so.
>If they're holding
>up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're doing is using a
>street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If you have a couple of
>shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while watching The Good Guys it doesn't
>cause society any problems, ditto if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save
>prison for those who actually harm others.
AMEN!
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> It's not just a convenience issue. OTC, store brand equivalents of Sudafed are
>> about five bucks for a box of two dozen doses. Adding a visit to a physician
>> to get a prescription raises the cost by a factor of eight.
>
>I assume you see your doctor once a year even if you're in good health, so
>it's not like you'd need to make a special trip. And once you have a
>prescription a phone call is usually all that is needed to renew it.
[...]
Yes, that's all true, but why should the law-abiding be the ones to suffer for
the acts of the lawless? I think this bill in Indiana is going to pass, and I
predict that shortly after it becomes law we're going to see a significant
increase in armed robberies at pharmacies.
>> More than that, though, is the utter impossibility of ever stopping the drug
>> problem by attacking the supply side.
>
>It worked with Quaaludes, the limited number of mfg. meant it was possible
>to choke it off. It hasn't totally disappeared but you rarely even hear of
>it these days.
And the net effect on the drug problem was nil, as the abusers simply switched
to different drugs that were easier to obtain.
Attacking the supply side *cannot* stop the problem. We tried that in the 20s
with alcohol. It didn't work. We've been trying it for more than 40 years with
pot, meth, cocaine, you name it, and it's not working.
>
>> As long as demand exists, someone will
>> produce a supply to satisfy that demand.
>
>Sure, the profit motive is a powerful force. But in the case of in effect
>synthetic drugs which require certain raw ingredients it's possible to
>restrict the supply of those ingredients and thus sharply reduce the
>quantity and strength of what appears on the street. This has already
>happened with meth, the strength of what is sold on the street has gone down
>as restrictions of products containing the raw ingredients have taken hold.
>I agree we're never going to stamp it out, but judging by what happened with
>Quaaludes we can sure knock it down in a way we will never be able to do
>with any drug derived from a plant.
And the abusers will switch to drugs with plant sources. That accomplishes
what, exactly?
"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
>> sensitivity.
>
> This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
> their shop dog.
>
> The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back to
> the groin, and painted cherry.
>
ROTFLMAO!
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
>>>>> the
>>>>> consequences of your bad choices?
>>>>
>>>>Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
>>>>choice?
>>>
>>> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out
>>> was
>>> in
>>> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is
>>> indeed
>>> a
>>> bad choice.
>>>
>>> Do try to pay attention.
>>>
>>>>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient
>>>>insurance?
>>>
>>> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had
>>> not
>>> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort
>>> insurance.
>>> I
>>> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
>>> health insurance is a poor choice.
>>
>>
>>For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.
>
> There is always a choice.
You ever been addicted?
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then
>>>> what?
>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to
>>> pay the consequences of your bad choices?
>>
>>
>> Who Decides? You? Me?
>
> The new Death Panels.
>
Sounds about right.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> consequences of your bad choices?
>>>>>
>>>>>Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
>>>>>choice?
>>>>
>>>> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out
>>>> was
>>>> in
>>>> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is
>>>> indeed
>>>> a
>>>> bad choice.
>>>>
>>>> Do try to pay attention.
>>>>
>>>>>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient
>>>>>insurance?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had
>>>> not
>>>> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort
>>>> insurance.
>>>> I
>>>> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
>>>> health insurance is a poor choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.
>>
>> There is always a choice.
>
>You ever been addicted?
>
My wife was, to cigarettes. She quit. She made the choice to quit. If there
truly was "no choice" then no one would ever be able to break an addiction.
HeyBub wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>> "HeyBub" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.
>>
>> Documentation please, that Texas, alone in the universe, is able to
>> keep drugs out of its prisons.
>>
>
> You are, of course, correct. Some drugs make it into the best of
> prisons.
>>> There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth,
>>> the other in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national
>>> centers (drug-free after being released for one year) is six
>>> percent.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>
>
> Since my training, and to my regret, there are now more federal drug
> treatment centers.
> * Federal Prison Camp, Forrest City, AK
> * Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, New Jersey
> * Federal Medical Center, Ft Worth
> and a few others.
>
> If you need a specific cite, you can quote me.
>
>>> Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
>>> taxpayer money in reduced crime.
>>
>> People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
>> consumption don't belong in prison in the first place. If they're
>> holding up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're
>> doing is using a street drug then prison is a waste of public money.
>> If you have a couple of shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while
>> watching The Good Guys it doesn't cause society any problems, ditto
>> if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save prison for those who
>> actually harm others.
>
> How do you think someone in possession GOT to be in possession? Did
> the stuff miracle itself into his pocket?
>
> In all likelihood, he bought it. With money stolen from somebody
> else. That stolen money or property is wealth taken out of the
> community.
derivatives
>
> Now you would probably argue that the money going to his dealer is
> put BACK into the community when the dealer blings up his teeth, but
> this sort of "broken window" economics, so beloved by Keynesians and
> Democrats, is a flaw of gigantic proportions.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
> Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
> sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more
> than a vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then
> you might just possibly be a little more understanding.
OK, how about some personal experience.
I smoked almost a carton a week from the time I was 18 until almost 60.
I did switch from unfiltered to filtered about the middle of that.
Just before my 60th birthday I had a heart attack - luckily not a massive
one. When I got out of intensive care I went outside, pushing my IV
holder, and had my last cigarette. I noticed no physical withdrawal
symptoms, just my hand having a reflex action of reaching for my shirt
pocket every now and then. That went away in a week or two.
I did tell my cardiologist that I missed it and wondered if one cigar a
month was admissible. He reluctantly agreed. I adhered to that regimen
for 10 years. When I reached 70 I unilaterally decided to let myself
have one a week. Been doing that for 4 years. Surely if smoking was
addictive to me I would have been rapidly increasing my cigar smoking
until it was a constant thing.
I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
not seem to be addictive to me.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/18/2011 3:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>
>>
>> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Rehabilitation of the offender is certainly one worthy goal. But restoring
> his rights, in the mind of some, flies in the face of another goal:
> deterrence.
>>
>>> If the would-be goblin thinks the worst that can happen is to (eventually?)
> return to his current state, that there is no long-term consequence, he might
> be persuaded to wear white before Memorial Day or some other affront to the
> sensibilities of normal folk.
>>
>> If an ex-con has no possible way of working his way back to respectability
> then surely a powerful motivation for reform is being taken away. We're
> supposed to love the repentant sinner, remember?
>>
>
>We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a republic. Loving someone
>has nothing to do, one- way or the other - with public policy.
>
Well, no, but his point about removing a powerful motivation for reform is
well taken.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:31:41 -0800, RicodJour wrote:
> I do sense an increasing trend - you've quadrupled your smoking in only
> 4 years.
>
Either I can't write or you can't read. My consumption was steady at 1 a
month for 10 years - no increase. I then decided to "quadruple" it 4
years ago and it has been steady at that level for 4 years.
> Check back in periodically so we can monitor your
> addic...sorry...habi...oops...relaxation? Say every 5 years for the
> next 30 year. That should give us enough data to draw some meaningful
> answers.
If I'm around in 30 years I'll be 104. Living proof that 1 cigar a week
isn't harmful :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>>>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then
>>>>>>>>what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to
>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> consequences of your bad choices?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
>>>>>>choice?
>>>>>
>>>>> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out
>>>>> was
>>>>> in
>>>>> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is
>>>>> indeed
>>>>> a
>>>>> bad choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do try to pay attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient
>>>>>>insurance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had
>>>>> not
>>>>> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort
>>>>> insurance.
>>>>> I
>>>>> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead
>>>>> of
>>>>> health insurance is a poor choice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.
>>>
>>> There is always a choice.
>>
>>You ever been addicted?
>>
>
> My wife was, to cigarettes. She quit. She made the choice to quit. If
> there
> truly was "no choice" then no one would ever be able to break an
> addiction.
If there was Choice, no one would ever GET addicted.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
> I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not.
It is.
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
>> not seem to be addictive to me.
>
> I smoked a pack a day from 26-25 years of age. One day I said to myself
> that I was tired of the bad taste in my mouth, the sore, dry throat and
> the smelly nicotain stained fingures and just quit without any cravings at
> all after that. Wasn't difficult at all and some people have told me that
> if I quit that easily, then I wasn't addicted. Maybe I wasn't. The only
> way I can explain my ease with quitting is that I experience a paradigm
> shift in thinking and then it was easy after that. I suspect that even
> partially, heavily addicted addicts on other drugs need to experience some
> type of similar change in thinking before they have a chance of quitting
> and staying quit.
>
In general, the required change is the admission that you are an Addict. I
drank heavily from 18 to 23 and from 42 to 43 and had no problems either
time. I can take a drink any time I want and have no problems refusing the
second. If I smoke ONE cigarette, I NEED a carton.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> In general, the required change is the admission that you are an Addict.
>> I drank heavily from 18 to 23
>
> So did I at the same age for several years. Every weekend, I'd have some
> friends over and I'd drink two bottles of cheap wine during a card game.
> After I moved out and was on my own with most of us going our different
> ways, I drank very little after that. I think it was just the social
> aspect of it that brought on the drinking.
>
>> time. I can take a drink any time I want and have no problems refusing
>> the second. If I smoke ONE cigarette, I NEED a carton.
>
> Fortunately, I never had that problem. The ten years I smoked and then
> quit had no noticeable addictive properties attached at all. Ten years
> later when I was in the hospital for three months, I held the cigarette
> for a quadraplegic acquaintence and the smell of the nicotine on my
> fingers afterwards almost made me gag.
>
I can smell it when somebody lights up half a block away or even if a smoker
preceded me into a store. If I get in the actual second hand smoke, I start
having allergy symptoms.
--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?
"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in 1492032 20110218 181537 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
>>> sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more
>>> than a vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then
>>> you might just possibly be a little more understanding.
>>
>>OK, how about some personal experience.
>>
>>I smoked almost a carton a week from the time I was 18 until almost 60.
>>I did switch from unfiltered to filtered about the middle of that.
>>
>>Just before my 60th birthday I had a heart attack - luckily not a massive
>>one. When I got out of intensive care I went outside, pushing my IV
>>holder, and had my last cigarette. I noticed no physical withdrawal
>>symptoms, just my hand having a reflex action of reaching for my shirt
>>pocket every now and then. That went away in a week or two.
>>
>>I did tell my cardiologist that I missed it and wondered if one cigar a
>>month was admissible. He reluctantly agreed. I adhered to that regimen
>>for 10 years. When I reached 70 I unilaterally decided to let myself
>>have one a week. Been doing that for 4 years. Surely if smoking was
>>addictive to me I would have been rapidly increasing my cigar smoking
>>until it was a constant thing.
>>
>>I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
>>not seem to be addictive to me.
>
> Smoking is a habit, not an addiction.
For YOU.
> I stopped dead at the end of 1975, after 20 years of 30-40 per day, and
> haven't
> had one since.
Lucky you.
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess
>>>> in the Netherlands.
>>>>
>>>> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin,
>>>> etc.) are also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The
>>>> Netherlands.
>>>
>>> You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on in
>>> Portugal while you're about it.
>>
>> I checked before I posted. Visit the chart at:
>> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm
>>
>> The Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.S. are signatories to the United
>> Nations Single Convention Treaty on drugs. The treaty provides that
>> signatories provide criminal penalties for the use, manufacture,
>> sale, transport, blah-blah-blah, listed drugs.
>>
>> Inasmuch as our constitution says that "This constitution and
>> treaties made pursuant thereto shall be the supreme law of the
>> land," we cannot make ANY proscribed drug legal without abrogating
>> the treaty. Same with the Dutch and Portugese.
>
> Do some more research.
You are the one who asserted that it is not illegal to buy or use drugs in
the Netherlands. I disputed that, sort of. I showed you that it is illegal
in The Netherlands to "possess" virtually all drugs. By buying or using
drugs, one is "possessing" them, therefore both of those conditions are
illegal.
It is now up to you to validate your claim.
?
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2/15/2011 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The second? well, who the Hell cares about onesie-twosies? Or
>>>> the crazy mom who just popped off her two kids while dad was off
>>>> fighting one of those wars... Because it's a god-damned American
>>>> constitutional right to own a gun!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh geezus... Why don't you rave about the deranged moms who roll their
>>> cars into rivers with the kids strapped into the back seats? Is it a
>>> little less convenient for you to rant about owning cars in the face
>>> of this kind of thing?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yarbut if she had to ride a bus it wouldn't have happened ...
Sure, but if she had a gun she could hijack it and put 40 people into the
lake. I won't ride a bus in a state with lax gun laws just for that reason.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> such industrial buildings. So, for example, one could have legal drug
> use, but restrict it to areas zone for such things.
And now you're going to play the naive 'what could happen' role? People who
use habit forming drugs, even legal ones are not very agreeable on obeying
zoning laws.
> But, no, you're right. It's much better to spend billions locking up
> people - particularly people of color or people that are poor - isn't it?
WARNING! WARNING! MORE DANELIUK BULLSHIT. Now you're trying to support your
argument by bringing in the race card. Yet, your record shows very little
trouble attacking universal health care even though it helps those people
who need it the most, the people who are poor or of colour. You can't have
it both ways asswipe. The truth is that money and personal profit is your
ONLY controlling interest. You have absolutely no other concern for anybody
or anything else.
Upscale wrote:
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I've never been in a bar fight in my life, I haven't been
>> intoxicated in public for twenty years at least, so explain to me
>> why restricting my ownership of firearms will have the slightest
>> impact on the number of people shot as a result of fights in bars.
>
> Because you're advocating gun freedom for everybody, not just you.
> Stating that you haven't done any of those things above is just ared
> herring when it comes to talking about everybody. It's about as
> shortsighted as you can get to suggest that 'an armed society is a
> polite society' will take care of all or most potentially volatile
> situations. People are people with emotions, the instinct to survive
> and in reality, the greed to take what they can get away with. Yup,
> that's a pessimistic, cynical view of the human race, but I don't
> apologize for it in any way shape or form.
No it's not. It is hateful in the extreme to penalize the law-abiding for
the possible malevolence of the lawless.
Nothing, however, is black and white; there's always a line somewhere. We
regulate dynamite and penalize its unauthorized use but do not do the same
for bowling balls. Society has said that the potential for great harm exists
with dynamite but not bowling balls.
The whole issue, then, is where you draw the line. In my view, the line
should be as close to universal gun ownership as possible.
Regarding your admittedly cynical view of the human race, your view has much
to commend it. Assuming that goblins exist, removing firearms from the
righteous simultaneously removes the ability of the potential victim to
avoid being an actual victim.
"Kick burglaries" (i.e., home invasions) never really caught on in the South
and West because within the first five attempts at such a maneuver, the
'roided up primate ended up horizontal and staining the floor.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:16:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Many become addicted and cannot pay for the recreation of choice and then
>>Rob others. Meth, for example.
>
>But the main reason that illegal drugs are expensive is that they're illegal.
>>
>>Many of the recreations of choice cause otherwise nice folks to lose control
>>and then do harm to others. Meth, for example.
>
>And many don't. The ones who steal and rob need to go to jail, because theft
>and robbery cause harm to others. The ones who get quietly stoned at home
>should be left alone.
Doug making meth is not extremely expensive, dangerous but not
expensive at all.
Mark
On 2/15/2011 9:11 AM, Josepi said this:
> I am sorry about your situation but a gun in the hands of a citizen may
> have contributed more people into the grief you portray. Was the source
> of the weapon ever traced to find if originated from another person
> thinking they were protecting themselves.
The "weapon" was a man much larger and stronger than she. A gun would
have given her at least parity or even the advantage. Instead,
unarmed and overpowered, she was violated and murdered. This is what
guns are very good at stopping. I (later) grew up in a small town
where pretty much EVERYONE had guns (I had semiauto pistols as a teen).
That kind of extreme violence was almost unheard of. Why? Lots of
reasons, but one of them was: Everyone could shoot back.
>
> I know lots of people that own gun, legal and illegal. The obsession with illegal guns is a sickness.
The distinction of legal vs. illegal is a fools errand appealing only to
the anti-gun crowd. The fact is that those of us that are responsible,
will be so with a fully automatic weapon or a peashooter. Those that are
irresponsible will be so with anything in their possession as well. It is NOT
the weapon, it is the PERSON that creates the risk. Weapons and weapon types
neither make it worse or better. A machine gun carries the same moral component
as a circular saw.
>
> Our gun controls are in the early stages, in this country. No system is perfect
No. Your gun controls place you in the early stages of making it possible to subjugate
you by government- or criminal force.
>
> Have you been studying self-defence methods long or realy not concerned with it to make an effort
I do not understand what you are asking here.
>
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> As a former Canadian, allow me to inject some Reality into your foolish
> rant. LOTs of people in Canada have guns:
>
> - The Mounties
> - The military
> - The local police
> - The criminals
>
> The only group in Canada that is not so armed are ... the law abiding
> citizens, thereby making them easy prey for any of the above...
>
> (I speak, BTW, as someone who lost a close family member to assault and murder
> in Canada. Oh how I wish she'd had a gun in her hands that day.)
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to possess
>> in the Netherlands.
>>
>> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin,
>> etc.) are also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The
>> Netherlands.
>
> You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on in
> Portugal while you're about it.
I checked before I posted. Visit the chart at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm
The Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.S. are signatories to the United
Nations Single Convention Treaty on drugs. The treaty provides that
signatories provide criminal penalties for the use, manufacture, sale,
transport, blah-blah-blah, listed drugs.
Inasmuch as our constitution says that "This constitution and treaties made
pursuant thereto shall be the supreme law of the land," we cannot make ANY
proscribed drug legal without abrogating the treaty. Same with the Dutch and
Portugese.
I don't own a gun and I have no need to get even with an intruder as people
with guns seem to lust for. Just slip out the back door or as the defence
teachers will teach the smarter people... Fake a faint on the floor.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
So if it's three in the morning and you just woke to
the sound of breaking glass on the other side of your home and you'd rather
have a telephone than a gun, okay, that's your right. But don't presume to
impose your beliefs on the rest of the world.
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:e8501258-5000-4f84-a4c4-8449c0e8d0ea@x21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> So in your twisted mind, if one reads one of your posts it
> automatically means the reader cares?
When somebody whose fingers I stepped on recently is still so pissed off
that he follows me around in threads he otherwise hasn't participated in
just to repeatedly hump my ankle, I think I'm justified in finding that
amusing. And you are amusing, Robotboy, because you take such silly shit so
seriously, you're so obviously out for petty revenge--how could that not be
worth a laugh?
Hey, knock yourself out, better men than you have called me names and I'm
still alive and kicking.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> guns are very good at stopping. I (later) grew up in a small town
> where pretty much EVERYONE had guns (I had semiauto pistols as a teen).
> That kind of extreme violence was almost unheard of.
BULLSHIT! You must be pretty damned old then, were living in an extremely
remote northern location or are a native American. I'm 57 now and I bought
my first gun, a Browning Challenger when I was 18. I had to belong to a
registered gun club (Sharron Gun Club in this case) where I was a charter
member when they were looking to properly fund the club's activities. In
addition, I had to go through a training course and had to be fully licensed
with a transport permit as well as registered with the Police.
I don't believe your crap for one second. I've caught you in lies previously
and now you've been caught again.
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I agree with all you say (snipped or not), but your statement
> "But this contradicts your first point."
> is not quite true. Unless the seller can indeed guarantee that the
> purchaser is sane and responsible. As you later on say, there are many
> irresponsible sellers, as is shown by the NYC undercover purchasers. I
> agree that those sellers should be punished, with no financial
> repercussions to the taxpayer.
But there is no legal basis (nor is it practical) to require a seller to
determine the sanity or responsibility of a purchaser, that is the job of
the state rather than a private business. A gun dealer needs to comply with
the law, but it is the legislature that creates and enforces the law.
This all depends on which group he trolls.
Dont' feed the troll!
http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
--------------------------------------------
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:F3%[email protected]...
Oh, excuse. I didn't realize you were so perfect and never made a bad choice
in your life. And more surely, you've never tried a cigeratte or had a drink
in your life. Of course you've never been drunk either. And when you were a
teenager all exuberant with life, you never intentionally went over the
speed limit at the wrong time and place killing yourself. And if it had
happened, your family would have said c'est la vie and you deserved to die
for making an unwise choice. I'm quite sure you live a pristine life and
will never ever regret anything you've done.
Jackass.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
> in
> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
> a
> bad choice.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:13:26 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:06:27 -0500, Josepi wrote:
>
>> Many of these killings are the gun owners own children sneaking in late
>> at night.
>
>And you know this how? Reference?
C'mon, guys. PDFTFT. He's baiting you AGAIN.
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer
Finally found the supertroll.
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:13:26 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
C'mon, guys. PDFTFT. He's baiting you AGAIN.
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> would quit responding), he didn't need a remote location. All he had to
> do was grow up in the South. I did. And I walked into a store and
> bought a .38 revolver when I was 13 or 14. Nobody thought there was
> anything wrong with that. Luckily I never had to use it.
Read daneliuk's thread a little closer Larry. When he first said it, he
suggested that he was living in Canada when he had all this easy access to
firearms. That's what I called bullshit on. After I did, he corrected the
statement to say he was actually living in the US when he had the firearms.
You see, Timshit likes to play these little word games and when called on
it, he always comes up with a 'correction'. It's his way of lying and then
trying to pull his butt out of the line of fire.
You have to love Usenet and how some of these troll types just love to sit
waiting for an argument to break out and then offer their insecurity to the
world via "Just put him in your killfilters. I did years ago. He's a troll
etc...". It's the old
Line in the sand thing "All you guys are with ME, right?...right?" Thing.
I have been to the USA many times and I find the people very compatible and
similar to Canadians. The main difference I do notice is the propaganda
constantly bombarding the people of USA regarding defending yourself and the
other side of the world all beats their wives, kills their children or cuts
off their ears and tortures their dogs. There is a constant hero worship of
men with guns portrayed in the movies and TV shows. They keep the people so
pumped with hate and anger to distract from any real political issues with
the "Right to bear arms" obsession. This gets worse as one travels deeper
south into the States.
You don't see this happening in Canada, in my area. The newspaper doesn't
have an article about how other cultures are destroying the world
***everyday***. The attempt to keep the populace angry and at war and
anxious is missing.
The Americans will always have the right to bear arms against an imaginary
enemy that the government and news media has propagandized them with for
some political gain. The government dictates what to think for it's own
control.
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Um... just to make this clear (especially for our angry little friend), at
various
times, I have lived in Canada, Western Europe, and various places in the US.
I have lived in very large cities, and the smallest of villages, and some
places
in between. I've liked every place I've ever lived for different reasons,
but above them all, in retrospect, Alaska was far and away the best of the
bunch. Aside from somewhat dodgy weather, it is breathtakingly beautiful,
clean (except when it gets Californicated in the summer months), and people,
while helpful, mostly have a live and let live attitude about things. It's
the only place I have every been able to legally stand at the end of a
very large runway (upon which I had just landed a Cessna) an fire .44 Mag
rounds for fun. Try that at LAX or ORD .... (well, probably not)...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:31:46 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> Recreational drug use alone should be decriminalized if for no other
>>> reason that it makes no sense to use our limited tax dollars to house,
>>> feed and cloth people whose only offense is against themselves. It's
>>> when drug use impairs a person's judgment and physical abilities that we
>>> should be concerned. Think the equivalent of DUI laws for drug users.
>>> There is a potential middle ground between legalization and
>>> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
>>> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
>>
>> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
>> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than once)
>> than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
>
>Rehab is 30k/month. Institute the death penalty for first offense DEALING.
That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though. ;)
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I still think there are people for whom there are to be NO path back.
> People
> whose violation of our social compact is so heinous that they never
> deserve
> a second chance. Among such crimes would include rape, murder, child
> predation,
> and listening to Lady Gaga ...
Of course, I agree, I wasn't suggesting *all* felons should be able to get
their rights back.
I wouldn't pay a dollar for Lady Gaga tickets and all her recordings thrown
in. But I have to admit, after watching the profile of her on 60 Minutes
last week I'm forced to admit there seems to be a keen mind behind that
persona she's created. She making money too fast to count and yet keeping
her private life, well, private. If she wants she'll be able to parlay that
fame into just about whatever she wants to do too, she's in control of her
career in a way a lot of previous pop-tarts have not been. I have no use
for her music, but she seems to know what she's doing and has the world
beating a path to her door on her terms.
DGDevin wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.
>
> Documentation please, that Texas, alone in the universe, is able to
> keep drugs out of its prisons.
>
You are, of course, correct. Some drugs make it into the best of prisons.
>> There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth,
>> the other in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national
>> centers (drug-free after being released for one year) is six percent.
>
> Cite?
>
Since my training, and to my regret, there are now more federal drug
treatment centers.
* Federal Prison Camp, Forrest City, AK
* Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, New Jersey
* Federal Medical Center, Ft Worth
and a few others.
If you need a specific cite, you can quote me.
>> Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
>> taxpayer money in reduced crime.
>
> People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
> consumption don't belong in prison in the first place. If they're
> holding up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're
> doing is using a street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If
> you have a couple of shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while
> watching The Good Guys it doesn't cause society any problems, ditto
> if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save prison for those who
> actually harm others.
How do you think someone in possession GOT to be in possession? Did the
stuff miracle itself into his pocket?
In all likelihood, he bought it. With money stolen from somebody else. That
stolen money or property is wealth taken out of the community.
Now you would probably argue that the money going to his dealer is put BACK
into the community when the dealer blings up his teeth, but this sort of
"broken window" economics, so beloved by Keynesians and Democrats, is a flaw
of gigantic proportions.
We have discovered that carrying guns leads to more crime and drug usage.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
So, YOU'RE that one that started all this crap. You're hereby ordered to
become addicted to several drugs, smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, put
on 300lbs of weight from eating too much and a drink a gallon of alcohol a
day.
And, when you reach the pont that it costs the establishment too much money
to keep you alive, we will make all your activies a god given right and will
then give you free drugs, free cigarettes, free food and won't send you to
jail drunk for driving over an entire family of five.
Sound good? :)
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And I think we've beat the subject to death. All I did originally was
> comment about a comic strip.
On 2/15/2011 5:55 PM, Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You certainly defend theft by force which makes you the moral equivalent
>> of the thief doing the work. In fact, as I recall, you claim it is a
>> moral good for the government to take from some and give to others -
>> presumably
>> because you're usually on the receiving end of that deal.
>
> Amazing. For someone who thinks he's so bright, you're remarkably stupid.
> Take your medicaid as an example. Where exactly do you think the money comes
> from to support people on medicaid? It comes from taxes, taxes paid by
> people. Yet for some inane reason, you consider that as 'taking' in the US
> version of healthcare, but you do in the Canadian version.
>
Wrong. I think Medicare and Medicaid are both Unconstitutional and morally wrong.
As I've said before, since you are forced to pay into your system, I see
no foul in collecting when the time comes. But to support and promote
such a system is wrong.
> To receive medicaid as I understand it, people have to be indigent and can't
> earn a living salary while receiving it. Is that correct? So there they are,
> receiving publicly paid for benefits. In the end however you slice it, it's
> paid for by other people. Those indigent people receive and they give
> nothing back.
Thus it is morally wrong - it is based on involuntary wealth transfer.
>
> In my Canadian system, my health care needs are met sufficiently enough for
> me to work and pay taxes. I contribute the best way I'm able back to the
> system that supports me. Yet, you seem to find some kind of flaw in that and
> call me a thief for it. Seems to me that your way is more costly than my
> way.
There are voluntary systems like that with which I have no problem. Two
such systems are called "insurance" and "charity". It is the "forcing people
to contribute at a point of the government's gun" part I have a problem
with.
>
> Oh, and by the way Daneliuk, sending your comments to my inbox *and* posting
> those same comments here will only have one effect. It just means that I'll
> redouble my comments and attacks to show everybody what kind of deceitful
> little money grubbing asshole asshole you truly are. I hope you like it,
> because it's only going to get worse.
You are a very angry person - you continue to have my sympathy and best
wishes.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
>> consumption don't belong in prison in the first place. If they're
>> holding up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're
>> doing is using a street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If
>> you have a couple of shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while
>> watching The Good Guys it doesn't cause society any problems, ditto
>> if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save prison for those who
>> actually harm others.
> How do you think someone in possession GOT to be in possession? Did the
> stuff miracle itself into his pocket?
He bought it from an entrepreneur, which according to you means a
Republican.
> In all likelihood, he bought it. With money stolen from somebody else.
It's a safe bet that the vast majority of street drugs purchased in this
country are not bought with stolen money, unless you count Wall St. stuffed
suits buying nose candy with money from looted pension funds. If memory
serves over half the people in this country have tried cannabis, for
example, and it doesn't make sense that they all stole the money they used
to buy their weed. Even addicts to really crippling drugs like meth and
crack first have to drain their own resources before turning to crime.
Don't you ever watch COPS, there is always some guy getting busted for dope
crying that he's going to lose his job. In the past couple of decades I've
had several friends who used various street drugs, and every one of them has
been gainfully employed, so I have to think there are many millions more
like that. Heroin or meth addicts are another matter of course.
> That stolen money or property is wealth taken out of the community.
> Now you would probably argue that the money going to his dealer is put
> BACK into the community when the dealer blings up his teeth, but this sort
> of "broken window" economics, so beloved by Keynesians and Democrats, is a
> flaw of gigantic proportions.
It's no more taken out of the community than money that buys some Made In
China product at Wal-Mart. The dealer is going to go buy himself a Big Mac
and a sweater for his mom. Because as you know, most low-level dope dealers
still live with their mothers. The boss will buy a big plasma screen and
some spinner wheels for his Escalade--money is always moving.
http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-3/
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:55:29 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:
>in 1492032 20110218 181537 Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:41:58 -0500, Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
>>> sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more
>>> than a vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then
>>> you might just possibly be a little more understanding.
>>
>>OK, how about some personal experience.
>>
>>I smoked almost a carton a week from the time I was 18 until almost 60.
>>I did switch from unfiltered to filtered about the middle of that.
>>
>>Just before my 60th birthday I had a heart attack - luckily not a massive
>>one. When I got out of intensive care I went outside, pushing my IV
>>holder, and had my last cigarette. I noticed no physical withdrawal
>>symptoms, just my hand having a reflex action of reaching for my shirt
>>pocket every now and then. That went away in a week or two.
>>
>>I did tell my cardiologist that I missed it and wondered if one cigar a
>>month was admissible. He reluctantly agreed. I adhered to that regimen
>>for 10 years. When I reached 70 I unilaterally decided to let myself
>>have one a week. Been doing that for 4 years. Surely if smoking was
>>addictive to me I would have been rapidly increasing my cigar smoking
>>until it was a constant thing.
>>
>>I don't know if smoking is addictive to other people or not. But it does
>>not seem to be addictive to me.
>
>Smoking is a habit, not an addiction.
>I stopped dead at the end of 1975, after 20 years of 30-40 per day, and haven't
>had one since.
Smoking is a habit while nicotine is an extremely addicting substance.
I quit in '88 and haven't ever been stinky again. ;)
--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson
On 2/14/2011 11:24 AM, Larry Blanchard said this:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:06:46 -0500, Josepi wrote:
>
>> Drugs don't make gun related deaths OK, anyway. Does the right to bare
>> arms cause drug addiction?
>
> My doctor doesn't want me to bare arms - says it causes skin cancer :-).
>
> Switzerland has more guns per capita than the US and a lower rate of gun
> deaths. Columbia has a rate 4-5 times the US. It's the society, not the
> tools.
>
Speaking of which:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swiss-stick-to-their-guns-in-weapons-vote-2213880.html
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>>>> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> consequences of your bad choices?
>>>>>
>>>>>Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
>>>>>choice?
>>>>
>>>> Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out
>>>> was
>>>> in
>>>> the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is
>>>> indeed
>>>> a
>>>> bad choice.
>>>>
>>>> Do try to pay attention.
>>>>
>>>>>What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient
>>>>>insurance?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had
>>>> not
>>>> spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort
>>>> insurance.
>>>> I
>>>> think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead
>>>> of
>>>> health insurance is a poor choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.
>>
>> There is always a choice.
>
>
> You ever been addicted?
Yes.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And therein lies a large part of the problem. Prohibition didn't work, in
> part, because any fool can make alcohol, too -- and since the basic
> ingredients needed (water, sugar, and yeast) are also essential to making
> bread, it's not possible to restrict their sale. Likewise, any fool can
> grow
> marijuana -- it's called "weed" for a reason.
The govt. had a chance to cut off meth at the knees, but drug industry
lobbyists kept the products used to make meth over-the-counter, where any
moron could buy or steal them.
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a5d04bb6-4f73-436d-927a-941c5b02e2c4@x13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> On Feb 19, 3:16 am, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some, like anything else, don't get addicted but those are in the
> > minority.
> > I smoked for many years then switched to Copenhagen for about ten years.
> > Chewed at work and always found those that walked around spitting in a
> > can
> > disgusting. I swallowed it. When I quit, I had serious withdrawal
> > symptoms.
>
> I'm experiencing a serious gag reflex just thinking about swallowing
> chew/snuff fluid.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Point is though that others around me didn't have to see it.
Oh, I understand your reasoning, but, man, talk about taking one for
the team!
I only dabbled in chaw and snuff back in the day, and if any little
bit of it went down the old gullet, I'd feel like I was going to
puke. Do you remember if there was somebody around that you didn't
want to offend the first time you, err, decided not to spit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I just didn't want to look at it. I've always had a cast iron stomach.
Never bothered me in the least.
Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Regarding your admittedly cynical view of the human race, your view
>> has much to commend it. Assuming that goblins exist, removing
>> firearms from the righteous simultaneously removes the ability of
>> the potential victim to avoid being an actual victim.
>
> But, this is a different argument. Time and time again, you (and
> others) have pointed out that there's all these potential victims
> waiting to be tortured, raped, robbed and killed because they didn't
> have a gun on hand to protect themselves. I ask you. Who are all
> these potential victims? Where are all these potential victims? Not
> in my building of 200 apartment suites where if one person knows
> something, we all do. Gossip is a powerful communication device.
>
>
> Perhaps things are different in the US and crime happens to most
> everybody all the time? What am I missing?
Well, EVERYBODY is a potential victim - some with more potential than
others. The fact remains that there are "X" number of robberies, rapes,
assaults, and insults perpetrated daily. Reasonably, some subset of "X"
could have been prevented with the proper application of deadly force.
Regarding the comment of up to two million defensive gun uses annually in
the US, I personally have been involved in three (two in a Home Depot
parking lot!). I've drawn my weapon when the squints refused my command to
"Stop! Come no closer!"
They backed off when the firearm appeared, one with the apology "Hey, dude,
I just wanted to borrow a cigarette (and I intended to light it with this
here hunk of rebar)."
In the two HD escapades, I reported my action to the store manager. In one
instance he called the police. The police officer, after taking a minimal
report, opined I did the right thing.
The only downside was I did not get to find out if my "Acme Rouge-elephant
Devastator Fragmenting Stink-Eye-Stopper Defense Ammunition" functioned as
well on a human as it does on kittens.
Oh well. Maybe next time.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And yet here you are, after informing the world just days ago that you
> were done with me, here you are again, and with the added comic bonus of a
> lecture on how you no longer want to have the last word.
Thanks for making my point.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> There are voluntary systems like that with which I have no problem. Two
> such systems are called "insurance" and "charity". It is the "forcing
> people
> to contribute at a point of the government's gun" part I have a problem
> with.
Then for Christ's sake, go and live somewhere that doesn't affect your
delicate sensibilities. Here all you do is whine and complain how your money
is being stolen from you. Society includes rich and poor, young and old, the
healthy and the sick. It isn't as you choose to believe, just the rich and
powerful. Truth is they wouldn't be able to build shit without all members
of socety. As far as you're concerned, deserving society is whoever can take
the most. For a little wimp like you, that should be galling considering
you're one of the many, not wealthy members of society. You seem to take
exception to people wanting the right to be healthy and only support it if
they pay for it.
I once stated that the most important right is to be healthy if at all
possible. Someone (who for the moment will remain unamed) told me that
freedom is the most important right. I beg to differ, because illness is a
prison with it's own set of conditions, worse in many, many areas than just
a simple lack of freedom. That's my experience and my viewpoint. Deal with
it.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Doubly. I bought some and tried 1 Benedryl one time and got so
> depressed I considered suicide. Scared the shit out of me. 24 hours
> later I was peachy, and angry with the discovery of how that med hit
> me.
>
Some of the drugs out there have really bad side effects. Specially some of
the prescriptions. Never noticed the warnings about Lunesta until after
having it's most notorious side effect. Took a couple one night. Went to
sleep. Woke up the next afternoon handcuffed to a hospital bed. Don't
remember a thing.
On 2/17/2011 2:13 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, "DGDevin"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
>> consumption don't belong in prison in the first place.
>
> Exactly so.
>
>> If they're holding
>> up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're doing is using a
>> street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If you have a couple of
>> shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while watching The Good Guys it doesn't
>> cause society any problems, ditto if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save
>> prison for those who actually harm others.
>
> AMEN!
There is a sort of foundational problem with this though: It really
gets in the way of the widespread instinct so many people have to tell
everyone else what to do. (This thread being one prima facia example.)
It never ceases to amaze me that individuals that wouldn't think of
sticking their noses into their neighbor's business, are only too
happy to do exactly that when the means is indirect by use of their
government.
There is some deeply twisted psychology that brings together the
people that want to tell you what to eat, drink, smoke, snort, chew,
or shoot, how to be married, how to be a parent, what to wear in a car
or motorcycle, and of course, how to spend your money. As individuals,
humans are pretty decent on the whole. In groups, they behave like
obnoxious Nosey Parkers.
I rather like P.J. O'Rourke's quote on the matter -
"There are just two rules of governance in a free society:
Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself."
ROFLMFAO. I guess you were warned too late about his "hate list".
What happened to the PDFTFT that people have been asking WTF does that mean.
He dances to his own tune.
Dont' feed the troll! Check it out. Reality check
http://groups.google.ca/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22PDFTFT%22+author:Doug+author:Miller&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2011&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=&sa=N&start=10
---------------------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.
Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.
Please quote the post in which I made such a claim.
Please -- oh, never mind. You've obviously run out of rational arguments, if
you ever had any to begin with, and the only thing left for you to do is to
attack straw men of your own creation.
<plonk>
DGDevin wrote:
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
>>> prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than
>>> once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.
>
>> Rehab is 30k/month.
>
> Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?
>
> http://www.drug-alcohol-rehabs.org/drug-rehab-cost.html
>
> "From the National Substance Abuse Treatment Services Survey
> (N-SATSS), the average cost for inpatient programs was about $7,000
> per month. Since more than 30 days produces a higher recovery rate,
> the cost of drug rehab can easily go between $7,500 and $75,000. A
> typical cost is usually going to be about $36,000 for a 90-day
> program."
> And that's private treatment, I bet the VA or the armed services do it
> cheaper than that.
In my state, incarceration is way cheaper. In 2003, we paid $2.5 billion to
lock up 148,000 inmates. That's a bit over $17,000 per inmate per year.
Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.
>
> Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're
> looking at a one-time expense. For the same money you get to lock up
> someone for just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the
> odds of them returning to prison are high. So which approach seems
> like a better use of the taxpayer's dollar? Half of all federal
> prison inmates are there for drug offenses, and prisons cost the
> American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I think exploring
> alternatives is at least worth trying.
There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth, the other
in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national centers (drug-free
after being released for one year) is six percent. Compare this to the 30%
of released criminals who do not return to prison and you'll see that jail
has a better outcome than treatment for addiciton.
Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> criminalization. Make the conduct to be deterred a civil violation and
>> impose a civil fine. Give a person injured by a drug user a civil claim.
> Civil litigitation. RIGHT! There's a solution.
You have combined my name with someone else's words. Kindly properly
attribute the post you're answering to the person who actually wrote it.
> For woodworkers who I'd say were generally considered to be creative,
> inventive and innovative, an awful lot of you are apparently delusional
> and shortsighted to the extreme. But hell, why should I be surprised? It's
> just par for the course when it comes to humanity.
You appear to believe that people who disagree with you are therefore by
definition stupid--until you correct this basic error you'll have a problem.
"DGDevin" <[email protected]>
> massively destructive almost forever--alcohol. However I think we all
> have the right poison ourselves provided we aren't harming others in the
> process. So if a person wants to drive home sober and then drink himself
> senseless every night, he has the right to do that. It's different if
> he's beating the wife and kids or something like that, then society is
> entitled to intervene. But aside from things like that I think people
> have the right to smoke or drink or whatever those substances they choose
> to consume, it is not the job of government to save us from ourselves
> unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so.
And, there is a compelling public interest in doing so.You're scenario talks
about what happens in a perfect world. The fact is, that perfect world
doesn't exist and never will. You're not just poisoning yourself. You've
having an effect on all those around you whether it be family, at work or
just in everyday living.
Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol then became easier to obtain and people
felt at home again having a drink now and then. But, you're ignoring the
downside. How many families have been and are destroyed by alcoholism? How
many deaths and injuries can be attributed to drinking and driving? You
might shrug that off, but if you're so ready to do so, then you haven't been
a member of one of those families so afflicted.
Please understand, I'm not advocating the removal of alcohol. I too like the
occasional drink just as much as anybody. But habit forming drugs have a
downside to them that pales in comparison to the downsides of excessive
drinking. The proposed scenario of government legalizing, marketing and
benefitting monetarily from the incorporation of such an action have the
very real possibility (and I'd suggest liklihood) of repercussions without
exception.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You've never remotely "caught me in a lie". You've merely assumed things
> that we not true (as here), invented a strawman case, and the foamed
> mightily.
> Your manners still need considerable work BTW...
You are a liar and a experienced one too. When we first started our
tet-a-tet several year ago, you accused me personally of being a thief for
accepting publicly funded medical support. It was only after I called you on
it that you modified your position by saying that you were against the
entire public medical system as stealing.
Among all my faults, short or incomplete memory is not one of them. Right
from the beginning, you've been a liar and continue to do so.
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> In general, the required change is the admission that you are an Addict. I
> drank heavily from 18 to 23
So did I at the same age for several years. Every weekend, I'd have some
friends over and I'd drink two bottles of cheap wine during a card game.
After I moved out and was on my own with most of us going our different
ways, I drank very little after that. I think it was just the social aspect
of it that brought on the drinking.
> time. I can take a drink any time I want and have no problems refusing the
> second. If I smoke ONE cigarette, I NEED a carton.
Fortunately, I never had that problem. The ten years I smoked and then quit
had no noticeable addictive properties attached at all. Ten years later when
I was in the hospital for three months, I held the cigarette for a
quadraplegic acquaintence and the smell of the nicotine on my fingers
afterwards almost made me gag.
"RicodJour" wrote in message
news:78278bb5-2cdb-49c5-85dd-fd56e7ac5ce1@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Put 'em to work. They earn money while in jail, and it's paid out
> when they're released if there have been no problems. Some of the
> money goes directly to their family if the family is on support. If
> there's a victim, a percentage, based on the severity of the crime,
> goes to the victim.
I like it. Sewing mail bags, stamping license plates, growing the food they
eat makes sense too. Repaying victims is something that is addressed all
too rarely.
> You are a Jedi Master at cherry picking data and ignoring variables.
He's pretty good at repeating urban myths and political propaganda as if it
was documented fact too.
On 2/13/2011 9:42 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Josepi" wrote in message news:2%[email protected]...
>
>> According to these stats published, USA is way out and beyond almost
>> any other country in the world. Canada and other gun control countries
>> have much lower figures including and not including suicide.
>
> Brazil has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. and a murder rate four
> times higher. Meanwhile Vermont has very loose gun laws (e.g. concealed
> carry without a permit) and routinely is at the bottom of U.S. crime
> rates. Obviously things other than gun laws are behind violent crime
> rates. If you want to bring down violent crime, do something about
> education, poverty and a booming trade in street drugs, that way you'll
> actually accomplish something. But disarming people who are extremely
> unlikely to ever commit a serious crime isn't going to accomplish much
> at all.
Bingo ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Can you cite any evidence of this or is it just your imagination?
Time to let it go now and get on with the group topic.
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Some people leave the world with no option, and your practice of making
dubious statements totally unsupported by any sort of documentation
naturally leads the world to dismiss you as a low-budget troll. Sorry about
that, but that's the quality of work you're known for.
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Josepi" seems to make up numbers as he goes along. I've finally learned
> to ignore him.
Seems like a wise policy. Argumentative is fine, but at least be
interesting, you have to at least look like you're capable of scoring a
couple of goals.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I normally get a kick out of the Doonesbury strip even when I don't agree
> with it, but today's rant about gun deaths made we question the "facts"
> given.
>
> The strip claimed 270,000 gun deaths "at home" over the last 9 years.
> That seems to be the total number of gun deaths - I seriously doubt all
> of them occurred at home. Just plain wrong there.
>
> Over half, however, were suicides. Banning guns won't do much to reduce
> the suicide rate.
>
> And I wonder how many were gang members and drug dealers killing each
> other? The more that happens, the better for the rest of us.
>
> But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
> misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
It is very easy to find statistics to support any conclusion.
-Me-
On 2/15/2011 6:51 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 05:35 PM, Upscale wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> would quit responding), he didn't need a remote location. All he had to
>>> do was grow up in the South. I did. And I walked into a store and
>>> bought a .38 revolver when I was 13 or 14. Nobody thought there was
>>> anything wrong with that. Luckily I never had to use it.
>>
>> Read daneliuk's thread a little closer Larry. When he first said it, he
>> suggested that he was living in Canada when he had all this easy access to
>> firearms. That's what I called bullshit on. After I did, he corrected the
>> statement to say he was actually living in the US when he had the firearms.
>> You see, Timshit likes to play these little word games and when called on
>> it, he always comes up with a 'correction'. It's his way of lying and then
>> trying to pull his butt out of the line of fire.
>>
>>
> You must have mis-understood - I didn't get the idea he was talking about Canada or the US as he has stated in the past that he came from across the pond somewhere? He certainly didn't imply that Canada was what he was talking about.
Um... just to make this clear (especially for our angry little friend), at various
times, I have lived in Canada, Western Europe, and various places in the US.
I have lived in very large cities, and the smallest of villages, and some places
in between. I've liked every place I've ever lived for different reasons,
but above them all, in retrospect, Alaska was far and away the best of the
bunch. Aside from somewhat dodgy weather, it is breathtakingly beautiful,
clean (except when it gets Californicated in the summer months), and people,
while helpful, mostly have a live and let live attitude about things. It's
the only place I have every been able to legally stand at the end of a
very large runway (upon which I had just landed a Cessna) an fire .44 Mag
rounds for fun. Try that at LAX or ORD .... (well, probably not)...
J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EVERY drug illegal to possess in the US is also illegal to
>>>>>> possess in the Netherlands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common drugs considered contraband (Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin,
>>>>>> etc.) are also contraband, i.e., illegal on their face, in The
>>>>>> Netherlands.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to check again. Oh, and see what's been going on
>>>>> in Portugal while you're about it.
>>>>
>>>> I checked before I posted. Visit the chart at:
>>>> http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm
>>>>
>>>> The Netherlands, Portugal, and the U.S. are signatories to the
>>>> United Nations Single Convention Treaty on drugs. The treaty
>>>> provides that signatories provide criminal penalties for the use,
>>>> manufacture, sale, transport, blah-blah-blah, listed drugs.
>>>>
>>>> Inasmuch as our constitution says that "This constitution and
>>>> treaties made pursuant thereto shall be the supreme law of the
>>>> land," we cannot make ANY proscribed drug legal without abrogating
>>>> the treaty. Same with the Dutch and Portugese.
>>>
>>> Do some more research.
>>
>> You are the one who asserted that it is not illegal to buy or use
>> drugs in the Netherlands. I disputed that, sort of. I showed you
>> that it is illegal in The Netherlands to "possess" virtually all
>> drugs. By buying or using drugs, one is "possessing" them, therefore
>> both of those conditions are illegal.
>>
>> It is now up to you to validate your claim.
>
> Any ggogleing of "Netherlands Drug Policy" will show that oan walk
> into a restaurant in the Netherlands and buy drugs off a menu.
>
> Technically, they are unlawful however the official policy is that the
> law is not enforced. The same is true in Portugal. If you want to
> call something done in accordance with official government policy
> "illicit" go right ahead.
I'm glad you finally agree with my statement above, "EVERY drug illegal to
possess in the US is also illegal to possess in the Netherlands."
If you want to discuss police and prosectorial malfeasance, corruption in
government, and subverting the rule of law, that's a whole 'nother thread.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're full of so much bullshit, it's stifling. Did you read my comment
> about safe injection sites? Would you feel perfectly complacent if one was
> formed in the building next to where you lived? Would you be perfectly
> happy with the drop in resale value of your house because one opened up
> close to your where you lived?
This is not a convincing argument. I don't want my next door neighbor
raising hogs or operating a sawmill in his back yard either, and I don't
have to worry about that because I live in a residential neighborhood where
such things would violate the zoning law. Is there some reason the same
zoning law couldn't prohibit safe injection sites in residential
neighborhoods? No? Well then.
"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Many of these killings are the gun owners own children sneaking in late at
> night. This doesn't happen a fraction of the amount in gun restricted
> countries.
Have you considered screenwriting as a career? Hollywood is eager to meet
people with your sort of imagination.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
> If you remove drug-related crime - particularly murder - from the numbers,
> US crime rates are unremarkable in context to other Western powers like,
> say, Canada. The creation of a contraband market is the single most
> important reason there is any significant degree of gunfire AND the ONLY
> reason the thugs can afford to buy very expensive illegal weapons.
>
> Legalize guns and drugs. Watch crime rates fall and criminals go broke.
Weak argument.
Ever go to Amsterdam while they were at the peak of their legalized drug
movement?
I have. I would not live in such an environment, much less raise a family
in any place at all close to that environment. Hell, even live by myself in
that environment.
I was never so happy to leave a place, not even ten times so.
Legalize drugs and I'm leaving, and that is a fact. I am also not naive
about drugs. I have had plenty exposure over my lifetime.
--
Jim in NC
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry, but you really need to get your head of the DEA's ass and start
> doing some research on your own--the DEA has a vested interest in making
> us believe that drugs are an immense problem that can only be resolved
> by draconian measures implemented by the DEA busting all and sundry.
Yup, as a rule bureaucracies rarely report to the legislature that they
should receive less funding and less power because they aren't really fixing
the problem.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> I've never been in a bar fight in my life, I haven't been intoxicated in
>> public for twenty years at least, so explain to me why restricting my
>> ownership of firearms will have the slightest impact on the number of
>> people shot as a result of fights in bars.
> Because you're advocating gun freedom for everybody, not just you.
No, I am not. I happily agree that convicted felons and people adjudicated
as mentally unsound should be unable to purchase or own firearms. If
someone has a habit of committing assault then he's probably going to get a
conviction serious enough to be denied the ownership of guns.
> Stating that you haven't done any of those things above is just ared
> herring when it comes to talking about everybody.
See, that's the thing about freedom and rights, they apply to everyone until
such time as a court of law suspends those rights for individuals convicted
of crimes or found mentally incompetent. If you disapprove of that
approach, perhaps you should consider moving someplace like North Korea
where they dont bother with all that freedom crap.
> It's about as shortsighted as you can get to suggest that 'an armed
> society is a polite society' will take care of all or most potentially
> volatile situations.
Once again, why do you insist on imposing statements on me which I have not
made?
> People are people with emotions, the instinct to survive and in reality,
> the greed to take what they can get away with. Yup, that's a pessimistic,
> cynical view of the human race, but I don't apologize for it in any way
> shape or form.
People have intellects too, and most of us seem able to grasp that if we
drive recklessly we will be penalized or denied a driver's license or even
imprisoned. We don't ban cars because some people drive recklessly and
cause accidents, we go after those who shouldn't be driving.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rehabilitation of the offender is certainly one worthy goal. But restoring
> his rights, in the mind of some, flies in the face of another goal:
> deterrence.
> If the would-be goblin thinks the worst that can happen is to
> (eventually?) return to his current state, that there is no long-term
> consequence, he might be persuaded to wear white before Memorial Day or
> some other affront to the sensibilities of normal folk.
If an ex-con has no possible way of working his way back to respectability
then surely a powerful motivation for reform is being taken away. We're
supposed to love the repentant sinner, remember?
You have obviously developed a firm belief, as most have, one way the other
depending (not always) on the surrounding propaganda.
One case does not make a statistical trend. Large samples of cases do.
Above all, look at the money I have saved by not paying for guns, permits,
renewals and secure lock-up facilities.
I have, however spend thousands of dollars for martial arts training over
decades but you have to do something to keep in shape. Woodworking isn`t
going to do it. Now back to my ibuprofen taking to equalize laying too many
ceramic tiles this week...LOL
The only experience I have ever had with weapons was from American people
threatening me with them. I have never seen one in an unfriendly manner, in
Canada. I like it that way.
All the best. Did we fix anything yet...LOL
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
A fascinating view. The only violence (and grief that comes with it) my
family ever experiences was in ... Canada.
Guns stop crime. The lack of them encourages it.
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Well, we know what happened when Prohibition came in, and it's the same
>> thing that's happening now with drugs. We also know that when
>> Prohibition was repealed the country did not fall apart as some claimed
>> it would. Why should we not expect the same result with drugs?
>> And, as has been pointed out, other countries have done it and not
>> collapsed.
> Other countries have not done it, not to the extent that you are
> suggesting.
Alcohol is the single most destructive drug in history. The nation didn't
miraculously benefit when booze was illegal, in some respects it got worse
(i.e. the rise of organized crime). And when booze became legal again, the
nation didn't descend into chaos. So in fact the experiment has been tried,
and we learned that prohibition doesn't work. If there was any doubt, we've
tried it again with other drugs and learned the same lesson--you can't shut
off the demand, so all illegality accomplishes is enriching the criminals
who will invariably meet that demand.
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>But enough soapbox. What I really object to is the seemingly casual
>>misstatement of statistics, something that's become all too common.
> Hey, they're Liberals. That's what they do. <sigh>
To assume that just one side is guilty of this is ridiculous. The recent
Republican manipulation of CBO analysis on employment due to the recent
health care legislation is a fine example. What the CBO really said was
x-number of people who are only working now to keep their company health
coverage would probably retire--the Repubs spun that into the legislation
would cause the jobs themselves to disappear as opposed to people currently
holding those jobs retiring, a very different thing.