At some point willful ignorance becomes negligence.

-- shooter242

Since you cross that line on a regular basis, does that mean we can sue you?

From the Justice department quite:

This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources

I always wondered how hard it would be to track down someone selling drugs through spam advertisements. If you were an FBI agent, you could just order some and see who sent it to you. Do FBI agents have to keep spam filters on their email so they dont accidentaly come into contact with criminals? These criminals are probably drug addicts themselves, and therefore the stupidest people out there, if not actually people in need of help. I realize they could not prosecute them all, but even if there were a few high profile prosecutions, it might cut down the level of spam that Americans receive, and in fact make the country more secure because it would be easier to find evidence in cases like this.

I completely agree with Glenn on the drug issue, and would take it one step further. Why do we have Schedule I for drugs anyway? Under what circumstances is it permissible to deny a person an action that has no primary effect of hurting others? I would say "never" and I mean it. Forget philosophy for a moment - it is a matter of resources. Should we be forcing our "help" on people who don't want it, or should we be focusing our efforts on people asking for help? If the answer isn't the latter, I certainly am curious about the reasoning.

And before anyone argues "they could hurt someone when they're high" to support Drug Prohibition, I'll remind you of the lesson of alcohol. Like Schedule I drugs, it was illegal at one time. Now, hurting others under its influence is against the law, as is proper.

I personally had a bout with something - I'm not sure what. I could have been depression, or anxiety, I'm not sure because I didn't see a physician about it. I did not want a diagnosis of mental illness on my medical records, and privacy reasons played a large part in that.

Now, I am "better" I guess. I have recovered joy in doing things I once did, and am at a new job where I feel appreciated and comfortable. But I worried my wife because she'd never known me to behave and feel as I did. Had I gone to the doctor, I probably would have less discomfort over that period of time.

Such recoveries are the exception, though. Not the rule.

@ IntrovertGirl April 18, 2007 07:08 PM - yes, the story about forced equality was called Harrison Bergeron.

I swear I saw this on the news (briefly) after Katrina...but didn't the (Bush) gov't go around taking guns away from residents of New Orleans?

I cannot find these stories through regular Google searches, maybe somebody with Lexis access can track them down. Might be worth digging that up again...where was the GOP/NRA spin machine when that took place?

I swear I saw this on the news (briefly) after Katrina...but didn't the (Bush) gov't go around taking guns away from residents of New Orleans?

Yes.

I found quite a bit by googling "gun confiscation new orleans".

Ktwdawg, I don't think we disagree as much as our comments do, if that makes any sense. We've stated a more extreme version of our argument than we actually hold, perhaps, in order to make our positions clearer. I don't think that stubborn, pigheaded, or belligerent is the way to go any more than you do. I do believe that no synthesis is possible without a genuine antithesis. If you don't state your position clearly, you can't hope to persuade anyone. Sometimes, too, there's no way to finesse an agreement. I don't think that in such cases you should pretend to believe something you don't merely in the interest of civility.

When I was younger, I had a lot of experience with white people in the South who would approach me with something that might start out like this: What're we gonna do about those nigras; aren't they really gettin' outta hand? Best to nip such things in the bud, I discovered, even at the cost of a conflict, rather than appear to collaborate in an anathema. If nothing else, it might leave them with the impression that not every Caucasian was a racist, and that maybe the next time they should step more lightly.

There are degrees in every situation, of course, but the basic principle, I think, is that there's no such thing as cooperation unless you stake out your position; there's only collaboration, because that's all that's being offered.

During my annual exam, I received an extensive question and answer sheet from my physician's receptionist before I was allowed to see the doctor. I inquired from the doctor why I had to answer questions about the number of times I had sex a week? The docotr nonchanlantly informed me that the questionnaire was information required by the federal government. To say the least I was stunned. The answers to these questions and many more were answers that my physician has never requested, so, to what end do the feds need this info?

Agreed.

The real ID act will really end Freedom in our country. These cards will be trackable aqnd your ID will be even easier to steal. If you are an American who believes in Freedom ..,.stop the REal ID act.

Also the law in europe is that all info in data bases is ownwed by the person whom it is about.

this law must be passed here.

This kind of BIG BRother stuff will only get worse if we don't stand up to it. The Founders and the WW2 generation would be up in arms over such Soviet style things like data bases,tracking chip ID and cell phones, and cameras in so many places.