Letters to the Editor
-
Enshrined for all posterior
@ Svensker
What puzzles me more, though, "Tiberius" is why you haven't done anything to rectalfy that in the interim.
The thought occurred to me too. But methinks it might be lost on Tibby.... But thanks for the correctum. ;-)
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
-
AAAAGGGHHHH!!!!
Would that undecided voters, after having to listen to Guiliani and his ilk, finally break down and utter the above expletive and cry, "Ok, I'm voting Democratic"!
-
So true
Social policy is complicated, needs frequent adjustment, and we've almost never got it right. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.
-- William Timberman
All policy, foreign or domestic, is complicated. It requires nuance, finesse and constant adjustment and attenuation.
As I said, I can spot them a mile away. I prefer the ones who don't mince words. Much more entertaining and they don't waste time. They get right to the point.
Brighstar65...You're ragging on Ron Paul?
then YOU are the problem that needs to be exterminated if this REPUBLIC is to survive.
Because I sure as hell did not sign up to be ruled over by a bunch of know-it-all punks (left OR right) in Washington who want to create the inevitable fascist state that is currently so fashionable amongst you oh-so-sophisticated politerati.
Ron Paul is the only solution to the current Constitutional crisis. Anyone challenging this is an enemy of the state.
http://letters.salon.com/f7e105b5e58f5e1c6ff56290f24cb1f4/author/index155.html
-
adnoto
Perhaps I have missed something wrt to argument here but from my perspective the conversation is becoming tiresome not because you have a point but because we already know these things.
First I would like to thank you for explaining your position politely.
The second thing I would like to say is that if what you say in the quote above is true, then why are so many being abusive toward me if they already agree with what I have to say?
I'm a leftist libertarian, almost dead on top of the Dalai Lama on the Political Compass. As such I find Dennis Kucinich the most attractive of all the candidates.
Since drug use in and of itself does not harm anyone other than the user, if them, then the use of drugs is a crime against the state, not a crime against an individual.
The fact that drug use is a crime against the state explains why penalties are so draconian for those "crimes". A murderer can serve his time, get out of prison and get federal funds in order to advance his schooling. Get busted with a single cannabis seed and you are forever denied those benefits.
From my point of view, the only reason that a person should be locked in a cage is if he or she has violated the rights of another.
-
ondelette
Umm...agree that some mind altering substances should be allowed with the proper social safeguards to prevent destructive behavior. Don't agree they should all be legal or that prohibiting any such substance is necessarily the cause of more social problems than unrestricted use would cause.
Since alcohol is a legal substance almost no one realizes that it is one of the very worst drugs around. Addictive, toxic and more likely to cause violent behavior than almost any other drug. "Mean drunk", "barroom brawl", "don't listen to him, it's the liquor talking", "ten feet tall and bulletproof", the propensity of alcohol to cause violent behavior is well known.
The thing that almost no one in America can understand is that "crack houses" are a product of prohibition, just like "speakeasies" were a product of alcohol Prohibition.
Prohibition of mind altering substances invariably leads to more damaging and more potent substances being introduced to the black market. Just as alcohol prohibition practically brought consumption of wine and beer to a halt in the US while greatly increasing the consumption of harder liquors such as "bathtub gin", liquors which were usually of dubious provenance and often adulterated with harmful substances.
-
Heh
The thing that almost no one in America can understand is that "crack houses" are a product of prohibition, just like "speakeasies" were a product of alcohol Prohibition.
You are comparing a crack house to a speakeasy and that is a glaring false equivalence. A crack house is not a place you would find the wealthy and well to do. The people who frequent crack houses couldn't have gotten past the door of a speakeasy.
Prohibition of mind altering substances invariably leads to more damaging and more potent substances being introduced to the black market. Just as alcohol prohibition practically brought consumption of wine and beer to a halt in the US while greatly increasing the consumption of harder liquors such as "bathtub gin", liquors which were usually of dubious provenance and often adulterated with harmful substances.
Sane regulation is what prevents "damaging and more potent substances" from being introduced to any market. You know nothing about the history of non-medical drug use in America or the phenomenon of prohibition (criminal sanction) and why it occurs. I'd give you some links to read but that hasn't worked in the past. As I said before, you either refuse to read or comprehend them or choose to ignore them because they don't support your agenda.
-
Heh
Since drug use in and of itself does not harm anyone other than the user, if them, then the use of drugs is a crime against the state, not a crime against an individual.
It is a victimless crime when it shouldn't be a crime at all. It is a socio-medical and public health issue. To say that it doesn't harm anyone other than the user isn't entirely true. In fact, it can harm the child or children of the drug user, and yes, even an unborn fetus. Does your logic work with other crimes? Rape for instance, if there was no prohibiton against rape, would the incidences of rape drop off sharply?
-
If that's true, and it might be
I'm a leftist libertarian, almost dead on top of the Dalai Lama on the Political Compass. As such I find Dennis Kucinich the most attractive of all the candidates.
You have damn little in common with Ron Paul.