Business History Books » Business Plans » BANNING! (was: Treating Pain (was:Demerol IV vs IM
BANNING! (was: Treating Pain (was:Demerol IV vs IM
Question:
[...] >Meanwhile, while the left/liberal >"we’ll deny you your freedom for >your own good" ethic never fails >to appall, the social conservative >"you druggies are the enemy of >God’s country and we will chase >you down and destroy you" ethic >is pure evil.
Now wait just a cotton pickin’ minute there, John. Most social conservatives aren’t even very religious. They just don’t see the problem of drug abuse as a so-called "victimless" crime, like you probably do. Druggies have families, friends, etc., and they also become affected by a druggie’s decision to become a drug abuser, i.e., it’s not just the druggie’s life that ends up being ruined or made a living hell, eh? They also think that incarceration acts as a deterrent for drug abusers (and to a few, it does), because it’s such a deterrent to them. They just don’t understand that it’s not much of a deterrent to lots of other folks. In fact, to a lot of folks, jail is actually a place to *find* drugs. And they’re not anymore "evil" than the folks who foolishly keep pecking away at our LIBERTIES, those wonderful folks on our left. Misguided, perhaps, and ignorant, too. Maybe even stupid. The drug war itself, as far as I’m concerned, harms and corrupts our society even more than the drugs do. It’s undermined our confidence and trust in our police and government, and it’s pitted us against each other. Most importantly, we’re seriously losing that war, and it probably a war that can never be won in a free society. It’s time to try something new. There’s probably nothing more stupid than redoubling your efforts on a losing proposition. :>( — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
>>True evil doesn’t hang out >in dark alleys. it hangs out in the halls of >power. If Carlos Lehder had the opportunity >to make it as Drug Czar, he’d have leapt for it. >:Thoughts like that one, John, reflect precisely >:why this war has done so much damage to our >:confidence in the government, the police. >:People like you don’t see any difference anymore >:between drug czars and drug dealers. >If there were no war on drugs,
:But there *is* a war, John. And :it’s the people’s war. No, it isn’t. Intense and relentless propaganda may have kept a majority willing to keep much of the war going, but this is a politician’s and bureaucrat’s war. And when the people actually score a point for the other side in eg "medical marijuana" referenda, the politicians and bureaucrats try to dismantle that victory. :Find fault with the people, not the :poor schmoos we charge with carrying :it out. I find fault with the leaders of this war AND with those who support them, in that order. >drug dealers >would be like Joe the bartender or Pete the >beer distributer or Jane the lady who sells >cigs at the 7-11.
[...] :Yeah, right, Carlos Lehder would probably :be co-starring in Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood, eh? No, Carlos would probably get a job as a hit man or something, just as all the gangsters who ran the alcohol industry during prohibition went off to run gambling enterprises or funding their sons political careers when prohibition ended. But they were REPLACED by the sort of people they replaced when prohibition was enacted, ie businessmen and working stiffs. :John, I noticed you snipped the part :where I asked you for "details" 
n how *you* would deal with drugs :if and when the war is hopefully ne day declared over. How would YOU deal with alcohol, caffeine and tobacco? :Legalization? Decriminalization? For sure legalization for everyone who is "of age". Real education on responsible use for those who choose to partake. The issue of underage users is considerably hairier, but I tend to be among those who think that legally enforced (if not exactly successfully enforced) abstinence up to some magic moment when one is thence- forth permitted to dive in w/o any prior experience is not the smartest approach. But smarter approaches require smart parents, which is something that is not exactly in great supply. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
>>:People like you don’t see any difference anymore >:between drug czars and drug dealers. >If there were no war on drugs, >:But there *is* a war, John. And >:it’s the people’s war. >No, it isn’t.
Yes, it is. Without the people’s support, it would have ended long ago. Here’s another example of that. Partial-birth abortion. My hunch? It will be banned shortly. Why? Because the vast majority of people now support the ban. >Intense and relentless >propaganda may have kept a majority >willing to keep much of the war going, >but this is a politician’s and bureaucrat’s >war.
Only to the extent that politicians usually respond to the will of the people. You simply want to let the people off the hook and blame the bogeyman politicians. The people are just as responsible, even more so. We usually get the politicians we deserve. >And when the people actually >score a point for the other side >in eg "medical marijuana" referenda, >the politicians and bureaucrats try >to dismantle that victory.
Only to the extent that the people are in favor of it. If the majority of Americans were in favor of "medical marijuana," we’d have it. >:Find fault with the people, not the >:poor schmoos we charge with carrying >:it out. >I find fault with the leaders of this >war AND with those who support them, >in that order.
I find the most fault with the people who elect our leaders. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->drug dealers >would be like Joe the bartender or Pete the >beer distributer or Jane the lady who sells >cigs at the 7-11. >[...] >:Yeah, right, Carlos Lehder would probably >:be co-starring in Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood, eh? >No, Carlos would probably get a job as >a hit man or something, just as all the >gangsters who ran the alcohol industry >during prohibition went off to run gambling >enterprises or funding their sons political >careers when prohibition ended. But they >were REPLACED by the sort of people they >replaced when prohibition was enacted, >ie businessmen and working stiffs. >:John, I noticed you snipped the part >:where I asked you for "details" >:on how *you* would deal with drugs >:if and when the war is hopefully >:one day declared over. >How would YOU deal with alcohol, >caffeine and tobacco?
IC…there’s no difference to you, eh? >:Legalization? Decriminalization? >For sure legalization for everyone who is >"of age". Real education on responsible >use for those who choose to partake. >The issue of underage users is considerably >hairier, but I tend to be among those who >think that legally enforced (if not exactly >successfully enforced) abstinence up to >some magic moment when one is thence- >forth permitted to dive in w/o any prior >experience is not the smartest approach. >But smarter approaches require smart >parents, which is something that is not >exactly in great supply.
John, I didn’t really expect you to provide me with any "details," and I certainly wasn’t disappointed, eh? There’s a lot of us out here (on both sides of the political debate) who would like to end this stupid drug war, but the real problems always come up when we finally get into the "details" of just *how* to go about doing it, along with our not being able to foresee the results very accurately. We’re now at point "A." And we want to get to point "Z." But no one really knows what’s going to happen along the way (at points "B," "E," "R," "V," etc.), and some folks don’t seem to even care (e.g., many libertarians). But a lot of us *do* care, and we’re not about to make any big changes before carefully dealing with and analyzing the "details" beforehand, including the many risks, etc. [E.g., who wants to end up with even more government regulations and intrusions on our privacies than we have now? Well, having the government provide these drugs at cost is really the only way to take the money (the obscene profits) out of the equation.] To save room, here’s a web site I found that covers a lot of those "details" that supporters of legalization seem to just want to ignore: http://www.interstat.net/gargaro/drugs.html You can keep blaming this silly war on all the "evil" people in the world if you want to, but until someone can finally elucidate those "details" much better than you seem willing to do, and then sell the people on it, we’re essentially stuck at point "A" for the foreseeable future. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
>>True evil doesn’t hang out >in dark alleys. it hangs out in the halls of >power. If Carlos Lehder had the opportunity >to make it as Drug Czar, he’d have leapt for it. >:Thoughts like that one, John, reflect precisely >:why this war has done so much damage to our >:confidence in the government, the police. >:People like you don’t see any difference anymore >:between drug czars and drug dealers. >If there were no war on drugs,
But there *is* a war, John. And it’s the people’s war. Find fault with the people, not the poor schmoos we charge with carrying it out. Been there, seen that. >drug dealers >would be like Joe the bartender or Pete the >beer distributer or Jane the lady who sells >cigs at the 7-11.
[...] Yeah, right, Carlos Lehder would probably be co-starring in Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood, eh? John, I noticed you snipped the part where I asked you for "details" on how *you* would deal with drugs if and when the war is hopefully one day declared over. So…how ’bout sharing some of those "details" with us on what you (as a libertarian) would like to see replace the war? Legalization? Decriminalization? How exactly would that work? PS: Yes, I know this is decidedly off topic, so I won’t mind a bit if you decide to drop this subject altogether. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
>True evil doesn’t hang out >in dark alleys. it hangs out in the halls of >power. If Carlos Lehder had the opportunity >to make it as Drug Czar, he’d have leapt for it.
:Thoughts like that one, John, reflect precisely :why this war has done so much damage to our :confidence in the government, the police. 
eople like you don’t see any difference anymore :between drug czars and drug dealers. If there were no war on drugs, drug dealers would be like Joe the bartender or Pete the beer distributer or Jane the lady who sells cigs at the 7-11. Only a liberty-bashing PROHIBITION creates the black market conditions that draw the Lehders and Capones of this world into the intoxicant industry. Those segments of the gov’t who have pandered to paranoiacs and sold this truly disgraceful war on freedom and responsibility to the least common denominator uniting the religious right with those new menaces to civilization called soccer moms have EARNED not just my "lack of confidence", but my enmity. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
Quote: There are indeed some firebrands out there who make even people like me groan, and the somewhat self-imposed marginalization of libertarians ends up giving these voices disproportionate weight, as I see it. Unfortunately, that’s true of "every" group which has a name. Jane Webb & Moonpie & Raisin Pie http://www.WebbWeave.com
Response:
[...] >:Here’s evil: >:<http://www.sptimes.com/News/112899/Floridian/Carlos_Lehder_Rivas__.shtml> >:And it scares me when folks can’t tell the >:difference. >:And I’m not easy to scare. >It scares me when people focus so narrowly >on the sort of black marketeers who exploit >prohibitions as "the face of evil" that they >can’t see the people who create the opportunities >these two bit criminals exploit, ie the >prohibitionists.
That’s okay, John. Apparently we scare the crap out of each other. I can live with that. >True evil doesn’t hang out >in dark alleys. it hangs out in the halls of >power. If Carlos Lehder had the opportunity >to make it as Drug Czar, he’d have leapt for it.
Thoughts like that one, John, reflect precisely why this war has done so much damage to our confidence in the government, the police. People like you don’t see any difference anymore between drug czars and drug dealers. >:John, I object to them, too, perhaps >:even more than you do. >:But I don’t for a minute confuse the >:folks charged with enforcing the law >:with being "evil." >Anyone who goes into law enforcement >under the current disgusting regime >can skip the "just following orders" >routine, as far as I’m concerned.
I see. If you can’t see the difference, just "skip it," eh? You’re exactly the reason that libertarians scare the crap out of me, John. None of you seem to have any sense of perspective. >And those buzzcut nazis who joined >up largely BECAUSE they wanted to >kick in doors like they do on "reality" >cop shows can pack their toothbrush >and head off to a post-drug-war >Spandau… Same for those "profilers" >who exploit questionable stats re >drugs and minorities and go into cop >work in order to harrass people of >certain other races in the name of >"law and order".
See? No perspective whatsoever. You lump the vast majority of cops out there, the ones who get into law enforcement basically to make a difference, to help keep the peace, etc, with the small number who are scumbags and assholes. >:Essentially, they’re only doing what >:the *people* currently want them >:to do. >So were all the witchburners throughout >history, which is why the framers tried >mightily to prevent mob rule.
Then direct your anger at the people, where it rightly belongs. That wouldn’t help you get many votes though, would it? >:And it’s time for the people to get smart >:and stop this foolish war >:before it destroys our country. >THAT I agree with.
Well, that just proves that even the people who scare the crap out of each other can find common ground. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->:Again, that’s the part about libertarianism >:that scares the living crap out of me. >What? That people will apply models of >dealing effectively with other social >problems with familial consequnces >to drug problems and leave the >gestapo out of it? >:No, John, it’s that you think every >:man is an island and should be let >:alone to do pretty much whatever >:he wants to do, even ruin other >:people’s lives. >Nope, everyone should be held strictly >liable for all real harm done to others.
And you don’t think folks like Lehder do any real harm, eh? That’s scares the crap out of me, too. >That does not include voluntarily going >to jail and carrying a felony record just >because Aunt Harriet is shocked by one’s >decision to smoke pot, drop acid or do >lines.
Absolutely! I agree 100%. So let’s work together to get those LAWS changed. >:That scares the crap out of me. >You are frightened by your misconception >of libertarianism. I can’t do much about that >beyond trying to set the record straight about >what libertarianism really is.
John, no matter what libertarianism supposedly "really is," in all actuality, it’s much like what you’re describing here in this post. It’s about confusing Bill Bennett, etc., with Carlos Lehder, etc. >:And that’s what libertarianism sounds like >:to me at times. >:Dodge City without Matt Dillon. >Most of the real world Matt Dillons of course >played either side of the law as opportunities >presented themselves. How else could swine >like the Earps end up where they did?
I see. You want chaos. That’s why I’ll never become a libertarian. Too many loonies. Of course, John, I mean that in the best possible way. Many of my best friends are loonies. And they scare the living crap out of me. I’d eat a gun before I’d ever vote for one of them. But they’re great guys. >:Again, I have no fundamental disagreement >:with any of that. >:It just sounds to me at times like libertarians >:don’t think *anything* you do is anyone else’s >:business, etc. >Which libertarians actually make you feel >that way?
You, for example. >:If you want to build a nuclear weapon in >:your backyard, which just happens to abut >:my own backyard, it’s my business. >How about a nuclear power plant?
If it’s even remotely possible that the SOB is going to blow up the neighborhood, it’s my business. >:If you want to run a house of prostitution >:out of your home, which happens to be >:across the street from mine, it’s my business. >I would say that that ought to depend on >how it is run, and that it is no different >in that regard than the case of someone >running a breeding kennel. Yeah, someone >producing 200 dogs a year in a residential >neighborhood is probably going to do certain >things that intrude on your legitimate rights. >The same is not likely to be true of the person >who produces an occasional litter.
There you go again, John. Scarin’ the living crap out of me! :>) >:And if you want to supply all the neighborhood >:kids with pot and crack and alcohol, it’s my >:business, etc. >Or alcohol or tobacco, right?
Right. I included alcohol, eh? If you’re going to supply my kids with things that are bad for them, it’s my business. >:Like speed, or discharge a firearm >:in the city, or drink and drive, etc. >All those plainly endanger others. >:So do drugs, John. >No, there are ways of using drugs that >CAN endanger others. When that endangerment >becomes so nearly inevitable that no reasonable >person could fail to notice, then it is negligence. >Until then, it’s no one’s goddam business.
I’ve known quite a few heavy drug users in my time, John, and while a couple of them were able to consume drugs more or less responsibly, much like I consume alcohol, the vast majority couldn’t. Would I deny those folks the right to destroy themselves, their families, etc? No. So we’re on the same side again. But I don’t try to imply to anyone that drugs aren’t dangerous. >:And that’s exactly what these "evil" folks of >:yours fear most, that they’ll endanger more >:than just themselves. >No, they fear that there are people out >there who value liberty enough to put >these truly evil people in the trashcan >of history with their fellow redcoats, >where they belong.
You’re scaring me again, John. >:I think they’re mostly wrong, but certainly >:not "evil." >Genuinely evil.
Now you’re really scaring me! In fact, I’m so scared of libertarianism now, that I’m going to swear to myself never to vote for one again, not even in local elections, just in case one of them might turn out to be like you, John. :>) You can come over to my place for one of my famous barbecues, I’ll even lend you money. We can even go hunting and fishing together, but I’ll eat a gun before I’ll ever vote for you! ;>) >So does driving while addled on drugs. >No libertarian I know of opposes >THAT sort of law. >:Well, it sure sounds like it at times. >Who specifically sounds like that at times?
You do, John. You should have the lead role in the "Scary Movie"! >There are indeed some firebrands out there >who make even people like me groan,
You mean loonies? ;>) >and the >somewhat self-imposed marginalization of >libertarians ends up giving these voices >disproportionate weight, as I see it. But >most libertarians are at pains to explain >that actions that inflict harm on others >are NOT to be tolerated in the name of >"freedom".
Yeah, that’s what they might say, but after listening to your supposedly moderate view of libertarianism, and witnessing your total lack of any perspective, libertarianism scares me more now than…well it just scares the living shit out of me. Period. >Even anarchists don’t believe >that. The latter simply believe in radically >non-statist remedies, while libertarians >generally recognize the courts and the >police as statist institutions that are >in and of themselves perfectly legitimate, >albeit easy to co-op for illegitimate >purposes.
"Generally recognize"? HAHA! IOW, they often don’t. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->:Libertarians, as much as I try to >:embrace libertarianism (and I really >:do try), sometimes just sound like >:a bunch of spoiled little brats. >Only to people who deep down inside >really do want to dictate how others >must live, >:I don’t have any trouble with wanting to >:dictate to others how they should live if >:what they happen to want to do with their >:lives is to addict *my* children to drugs. >Including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, >of course, in the case of minors.
You bet. All of the above. It’s *my* business. I don’t care that much about caffeine, but if you’re trying to get my kids to smoke, it’s my business. >Once >your kids are of the age of majority, however, >it’s time to allow non-minors to make their >own way through the moral maze, eh?
You bet! Unfortunately, the "marketing plans" of certain of the above are focused on kids, and that’s when it becomes my business. >:And if that makes me "evil" in your eyes, >:I can live with that. >You are a long ways from evil! 
Not in your world, John. I am probably the epitome of evil, the he-goat himself, ’cause you seem to lack the perspective I like to see in folks. :>) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->however much those same >people
… read more »
Response:
Quote: too many libertarians spend WAY too much time debating the esoteric details of alternative visions of "Libertopia" instead of doing useful work towards ridding THIS world of its most egregiously awful laws. Hear, hear. Jane Webb & Moonpie & Raisin Pie http://www.WebbWeave.com
Response:
>:I know what evil is, and it ain’t them.
I replied: >William Bennet: evil. Barry McCaffery: evil.
Dogman again: :Oh please, John. :Here’s evil: :<http://www.sptimes.com/News/112899/Floridian/Carlos_Lehder_Rivas__.shtml> :And it scares me when folks can’t tell the :difference. :And I’m not easy to scare. It scares me when people focus so narrowly on the sort of black marketeers who exploit prohibitions as "the face of evil" that they can’t see the people who create the opportunities these two bit criminals exploit, ie the prohibitionists. True evil doesn’t hang out in dark alleys. it hangs out in the halls of power. If Carlos Lehder had the opportunity to make it as Drug Czar, he’d have leapt for it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->:Why is it none of their fucking business, >:John, if their daughter or son, wife or >:husband, etc., turns into a junkie and >:destroys not only his or her own life, but >:also the family, their business, etc? >Wait a danged minute there, Dogman. >Lots of ways to screw onesself and >screw the family unit in the process. >Generally these things are handled >IN THE FAMILY. What I am objecting to >is the meddling into these private, >personal, psychological, moral, socital, >and/or medical affairs by cops, prosecutors, >judges, juries and wardens, all blessed >by meddlesome politicians and the >benighted idiots among the populace >who reward all these creeps with >votes and other means of support
:John, I object to them, too, perhaps :even more than you do. :But I don’t for a minute confuse the :folks charged with enforcing the law :with being "evil." Anyone who goes into law enforcement under the current disgusting regime can skip the "just following orders" routine, as far as I’m concerned. And those buzzcut nazis who joined up largely BECAUSE they wanted to kick in doors like they do on "reality" cop shows can pack their toothbrush and head off to a post-drug-war Spandau… Same for those "profilers" who exploit questionable stats re drugs and minorities and go into cop work in order to harrass people of certain other races in the name of "law and order". :Essentially, they’re only doing what :the *people* currently want them :to do. So were all the witchburners throughout history, which is why the framers tried mightily to prevent mob rule. :And it’s time for the people to get smart :and stop this foolish war :before it destroys our country. THAT I agree with. >:Again, that’s the part about libertarianism >:that scares the living crap out of me. >What? That people will apply models of >dealing effectively with other social >problems with familial consequnces >to drug problems and leave the >gestapo out of it?
:No, John, it’s that you think every :man is an island and should be let :alone to do pretty much whatever :he wants to do, even ruin other :people’s lives. Nope, everyone should be held strictly liable for all real harm done to others. That does not include voluntarily going to jail and carrying a felony record just because Aunt Harriet is shocked by one’s decision to smoke pot, drop acid or do lines. :That scares the crap out of me. You are frightened by your misconception of libertarianism. I can’t do much about that beyond trying to set the record straight about what libertarianism really is. :And that’s what libertarianism sounds like :to me at times. 
odge City without Matt Dillon. Most of the real world Matt Dillons of course played either side of the law as opportunities presented themselves. How else could swine like the Earps end up where they did? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->:It’s like that we should abandon the >:rule of law just because it sometimes >:tells us that we can’t do something >:that we might want to do. >Pshaw. The rule of law is undermined >most thoroughly by the existence >of thoroughly creepy "culture warrior" >laws like those that are at the heart >of the war on drugs. At that point >the so-called "rule of law" is merely >another form of rule by the biggest >brute on the block. Don’tbe surprised >when people wonder aloud what’s so >damned wonderful about it that they >ought to ow allegiance to it and >choose instead to build their own >militias and armies to counterbalance >the official occupation forces, aka >the police.
:Again, I have no fundamental disagreement :with any of that. :It just sounds to me at times like libertarians :don’t think *anything* you do is anyone else’s :business, etc. Which libertarians actually make you feel that way? :If you want to build a nuclear weapon in :your backyard, which just happens to abut :my own backyard, it’s my business. How about a nuclear power plant? :If you want to run a house of prostitution ut of your home, which happens to be :across the street from mine, it’s my business. I would say that that ought to depend on how it is run, and that it is no different in that regard than the case of someone running a breeding kennel. Yeah, someone producing 200 dogs a year in a residential neighborhood is probably going to do certain things that intrude on your legitimate rights. The same is not likely to be true of the person who produces an occasional litter. :And if you want to supply all the neighborhood :kids with pot and crack and alcohol, it’s my :business, etc. Or alcohol or tobacco, right? >:Like speed, or discharge a firearm >:in the city, or drink and drive, etc. >All those plainly endanger others.
:So do drugs, John. No, there are ways of using drugs that CAN endanger others. When that endangerment becomes so nearly inevitable that no reasonable person could fail to notice, then it is negligence. Until then, it’s no one’s goddam business. :And that’s exactly what these "evil" folks of :yours fear most, that they’ll endanger more :than just themselves. No, they fear that there are people out there who value liberty enough to put these truly evil people in the trashcan of history with their fellow redcoats, where they belong. :I think they’re mostly wrong, but certainly :not "evil." Genuinely evil. >So does driving while addled on drugs. >No libertarian I know of opposes >THAT sort of law.
:Well, it sure sounds like it at times. Who specifically sounds like that at times? There are indeed some firebrands out there who make even people like me groan, and the somewhat self-imposed marginalization of libertarians ends up giving these voices disproportionate weight, as I see it. But most libertarians are at pains to explain that actions that inflict harm on others are NOT to be tolerated in the name of "freedom". Even anarchists don’t believe that. The latter simply believe in radically non-statist remedies, while libertarians generally recognize the courts and the police as statist institutions that are in and of themselves perfectly legitimate, albeit easy to co-op for illegitimate purposes. >:Libertarians, as much as I try to >:embrace libertarianism (and I really >:do try), sometimes just sound like >:a bunch of spoiled little brats. >Only to people who deep down inside >really do want to dictate how others >must live,
:I don’t have any trouble with wanting to :dictate to others how they should live if :what they happen to want to do with their :lives is to addict *my* children to drugs. Including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, of course, in the case of minors. Once your kids are of the age of majority, however, it’s time to allow non-minors to make their own way through the moral maze, eh? :And if that makes me "evil" in your eyes, :I can live with that. You are a long ways from evil! >however much those same >people bristle at others telling THEM >how to live OR who don’t realize that >most libertarians don’t have any >quarrel with laws against behaviors >that clearly harm the person or >property of others or that truly >recklessly endanger the same. Yeah, >lots of quarrels about the details,
:Yeah, well, the devil is always in the details, :isn’t it? Depends on which details. Details about how many devils can dance atop the ramparts of some dreamer’s libertopian castle is not worth sweating. Too many real devils afoot in the real world to stew about that stuff! >The right and left peck both away at our >liberties all the friggin’ time. Neither >has a total monopoly on evil, true. But >in the case of the drug war, the mommy >state lefties tend to be considerably less >repulsive than the daddy state righties. >:And neither side is truly evil. >:Fucked up, yes, evil, no. >:Hypocritical, yes, evil, no. >Agree to disagree.
:Again, it scares the crap out of me :that you see people like Bennett and :McCaffery no differently than I see :Lehder and his ilk. Lehder is Al Capone. Bennet and McCaffery are the creeps who in the name of bureaucratic fief building made Al Capone not just possible, but powerful. The mob is still living off the dividends of Prohibition and there will be organizations living off the dividends of the drug war for decades to come. That would never have been possible were it not for the likes of Bennet and McCaffery wrapping themselves in the flag (like all truly satanic entities) and building their careers by playing on people’s ignorant fears (ditto). JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
[...] >:I know what evil is, and it ain’t them. >William Bennet: evil. Barry McCaffery: evil.
Oh please, John. Here’s evil: <http://www.sptimes.com/News/112899/Floridian/Carlos_Lehder_Rivas__.shtml> And it scares me when folks can’t tell the difference. And I’m not easy to scare. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->:Why is it none of their fucking business, >:John, if their daughter or son, wife or >:husband, etc., turns into a junkie and >:destroys not only his or her own life, but >:also the family, their business, etc? >Wait a danged minute there, Dogman. >Lots of ways to screw onesself and >screw the family unit in the process. >Generally these things are handled >IN THE FAMILY. What I am objecting to >is the meddling into these private, >personal, psychological, moral, socital, >and/or medical affairs by cops, prosecutors, >judges, juries and wardens, all blessed >by meddlesome politicians and the >benighted idiots among the populace >who reward all these creeps with >votes and other means of support
John, I object to them, too, perhaps even more than you do. But I don’t for a minute confuse the folks charged with enforcing the law with being "evil." Essentially, they’re only doing what the *people* currently want them to do. And it’s time for the people to get smart and stop this foolish war before it destroys our country. >:Again, that’s the part about libertarianism >:that scares the living crap out of me. >What? That people will apply models of >dealing effectively with other social >problems with familial consequnces >to drug problems and leave the >gestapo out of it?
No, John, it’s that you think every man is an island and should be let alone to do pretty much whatever he wants to do, even ruin other people’s lives. That scares the crap out of me. And that’s what libertarianism sounds like to me at times. Dodge City without Matt Dillon. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->:It’s like that we should abandon the >:rule of law just because it sometimes >:tells us that we can’t do something >:that we might want to do. >Pshaw. The rule of law is undermined >most thoroughly by the existence >of thoroughly creepy "culture warrior" >laws like those that are at the heart >of the war on drugs. At that point >the so-called "rule of law" is merely >another form of rule by the biggest >brute on the block. Don’tbe surprised >when people wonder aloud what’s so >damned wonderful about it that they >ought to ow allegiance to it and >choose instead to build their own >militias and armies to counterbalance >the official occupation forces, aka >the police.
Again, I have no fundamental disagreement with any of that. It just sounds to me at times like libertarians don’t think *anything* you do is anyone else’s business, etc. If you want to build a nuclear weapon in your backyard, which just happens to abut my own backyard, it’s my business. If you want to run a house of prostitution out of your home, which happens to be across the street from mine, it’s my business. And if you want to supply all the neighborhood kids with pot and crack and alcohol, it’s my business, etc. >:Like speed, or discharge a firearm >:in the city, or drink and drive, etc. >All those plainly endanger others.
So do drugs, John. And that’s exactly what these "evil" folks of yours fear most, that they’ll endanger more than just themselves. I think they’re mostly wrong, but certainly not "evil." >So does driving while addled on drugs. >No libertarian I know of opposes >THAT sort of law.
Well, it sure sounds like it at times. >:Libertarians, as much as I try to >:embrace libertarianism (and I really >:do try), sometimes just sound like >:a bunch of spoiled little brats. >Only to people who deep down inside >really do want to dictate how others >must live,
I don’t have any trouble with wanting to dictate to others how they should live if what they happen to want to do with their lives is to addict *my* children to drugs. And if that makes me "evil" in your eyes, I can live with that. >however much those same >people bristle at others telling THEM >how to live OR who don’t realize that >most libertarians don’t have any >quarrel with laws against behaviors >that clearly harm the person or >property of others or that truly >recklessly endanger the same. Yeah, >lots of quarrels about the details,
Yeah, well, the devil is always in the details, isn’t it? >The right and left peck both away at our >liberties all the friggin’ time. Neither >has a total monopoly on evil, true. But >in the case of the drug war, the mommy >state lefties tend to be considerably less >repulsive than the daddy state righties. >:And neither side is truly evil. >:Fucked up, yes, evil, no. >:Hypocritical, yes, evil, no. >Agree to disagree.
Again, it scares the crap out of me that you see people like Bennett and McCaffery no differently than I see Lehder and his ilk. Sccccaaaaarrrrrry. <shudder> :>( — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
Dogman writes:
:Now wait just a cotton pickin’ minute :there, John. :Most social conservatives aren’t :even very religious. Not sure about that. But a secularized version of this "culture war" BS isn’t particularly more appealing. :They just don’t see the problem of drug :abuse as a so-called "victimless" crime, :like you probably do. Druggies have families, :friends, etc., and they also become affected :by a druggie’s decision to become a drug :abuser, i.e., it’s not just the druggie’s life :that ends up being ruined or made a living :hell, eh? (1) Anyone who takes a risk in ANY venue and who loses the bet, be it a drinker or a skydiver or a cocaine user or someone prone to extreme religious beliefs/behaviors, will affect more than just himself if and when things get ugly. That’s the way life is. Unless and until all risky behavior will land you behind bars, the drug war is just social conservative hypocrisy. (2) Police solutions are notably POOR methods of convincing people to take fewer stupid risks, let alone of helping out those who take the risks and get burned. In the latter case, giving an addict a criminal record is about as decent as stomping on the fingers of a rock climber who has gotten himself in a bad jam. (3) Most people who use drugs are not seriously negatively affected by it and there are others for whom the ONLY negative effect is a brush with the law. The drug war creates most of its own problems. :They also think that incarceration :acts as a deterrent for drug abusers 
and to a few, it does), because it’s :such a deterrent to them. Before that, they don’t understand that it is none of their fucking business in the first place if someone makes a choice that they would not (assuming that they in fact would not – there’s a LOT of screaming hypocrisy out there). :They just don’t understand that it’s :not much of a deterrent to lots f other folks. In fact, to a lot of :folks, jail is actually a place to *find* :drugs. No maximum security prison in the US is remotely free of drugs. If it can’t be controlled there, it can’t be controlled anywhere. :And they’re not anymore "evil" than :the folks who foolishly keep pecking :away at our LIBERTIES, those wonderful :folks on our left. The right and left peck both away at our liberties all the friggin’ time. Neither has a total monopoly on evil, true. But in the case of the drug war, the mommy state lefties tend to be considerably less repulsive than the daddy state righties. :Misguided, perhaps, and ignorant, too. :Maybe even stupid. Neither left nor right has any monopoly on those either! :The drug war itself, as far as I’m :concerned, harms and corrupts our :society even more than the drugs do. :It’s undermined our confidence and :trust in our police and government, :and it’s pitted us against each other. The only thing I’d change is that any real harm that drugs have done is a pittance compared to the harm the drug war has done. :Most importantly, we’re seriously :losing that war, and it probably a :war that can never be won in a :free society. Exactly. :It’s time to try something new. :There’s probably nothing more stupid :than redoubling your efforts on a :losing proposition. True. The tax money squandered alone should count as grand larceny. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
[...] >(3) Most people who use drugs are >not seriously negatively affected by >it and there are others for whom the >ONLY negative effect is a brush with >the law. The drug war creates most >of its own problems.
John, again, I mostly agree with all of the above. It’s just your calling them "evil" that I disagreed with. Are they misguided, probably. Ignorant, probably, etc. But not evil. I know what evil is, and it ain’t them. >:They also think that incarceration >:acts as a deterrent for drug abusers >:(and to a few, it does), because it’s >:such a deterrent to them. >Before that, they don’t understand >that it is none of their fucking business >in the first place if someone makes a >choice that they would not (assuming >that they in fact would not – there’s >a LOT of screaming hypocrisy out there).
Why is it none of their fucking business, John, if their daughter or son, wife or husband, etc., turns into a junkie and destroys not only his or her own life, but also the family, their business, etc? Again, that’s the part about libertarianism that scares the living crap out of me. It’s like that we should abandon the rule of law just because it sometimes tells us that we can’t do something that we might want to do. Like speed, or discharge a firearm in the city, or drink and drive, etc. Libertarians, as much as I try to embrace libertarianism (and I really do try), sometimes just sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. >:They just don’t understand that it’s >:not much of a deterrent to lots >:of other folks. In fact, to a lot of >:folks, jail is actually a place to *find* >:drugs. >No maximum security prison in the US >is remotely free of drugs. If it can’t be >controlled there, it can’t be controlled >anywhere.
Agreed. >:And they’re not anymore "evil" than >:the folks who foolishly keep pecking >:away at our LIBERTIES, those wonderful >:folks on our left. >The right and left peck both away at our >liberties all the friggin’ time. Neither >has a total monopoly on evil, true. But >in the case of the drug war, the mommy >state lefties tend to be considerably less >repulsive than the daddy state righties.
And neither side is truly evil. Fucked up, yes, evil, no. Hypocritical, yes, evil, no. >:Misguided, perhaps, and ignorant, too. >:Maybe even stupid. >Neither left nor right has any monopoly >on those either!
You bet. >:The drug war itself, as far as I’m >:concerned, harms and corrupts our >:society even more than the drugs do. >:It’s undermined our confidence and >:trust in our police and government, >:and it’s pitted us against each other. >The only thing I’d change is that any >real harm that drugs have done is a >pittance compared to the harm the >drug war has done.
I’m almost in total agreement with you again. >:Most importantly, we’re seriously >:losing that war, and it probably a >:war that can never be won in a >:free society. >Exactly. >:It’s time to try something new. >:There’s probably nothing more stupid >:than redoubling your efforts on a >:losing proposition. >True. The tax money squandered alone >should count as grand larceny.
No one hates wasting tax money more than I do, but the real damage here is being done to our confidence and trust in the government, the police, etc. It’s made everyone dirty. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Dogman wrote > They just don’t see the problem of drug abuse as a so-called > "victimless" crime, like you probably do. Druggies have families, > friends, etc., and they also become affected by a druggie’s decision > to become a drug abuser, i.e., it’s not just the druggie’s life that > ends up being ruined or made a living hell, eh? > They also think that incarceration acts as a deterrent for drug > abusers (and to a few, it does), because it’s such a deterrent to > them. >Another thing they don’t see is that the majority of people who use illegal >drugs are NOT "druggies," as you call them, but responsible individuals who >use drugs recreationally.
[...] I’ll go along with that, RJT. Drugs aren’t my thing, but I have been known to have a drink now and then. ;>) And I consider myself a very responsible individual who just happens to enjoy drinking bourbon, etc. On the other hand, I think alcohol has probably caused more people more problems than all the various drug users combined. And it’s not only legal, it’s just as addictive as most of the drugs out there. [many very good points snipped...] >Oh yeah, and one more thing for Dogman: "Druggies" don’t "decide" to become >a drug abuser. Addiction is a biopsychosocial illness, not a life choice.
I didn’t mean to imply that at all, RJT. Again, I agree with virtually everything you said. >Cheers, >RJT, who is now off her soapbox.
I think it’s a great soapbox to stand on! — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
>(3) Most people who use drugs are >not seriously negatively affected by >it and there are others for whom the >ONLY negative effect is a brush with >the law. The drug war creates most >of its own problems.
Dogman replies: :John, again, I mostly agree with all f the above. :It’s just your calling them "evil" that :I disagreed with. :Are they misguided, probably. Ignorant, :probably, etc. :But not evil. The people who enthuse over Banana Republic-esque home invasions in the name of seizing the home and stealing the life of some guy growing marijuana in his basement are evil. Period. We can agree to disagree, but have a hard time imagining why anyone with an ounce of human decency would disagree. :I know what evil is, and it ain’t them. William Bennet: evil. Barry McCaffery: evil. >:They also think that incarceration >:acts as a deterrent for drug abusers >:(and to a few, it does), because it’s >:such a deterrent to them. >Before that, they don’t understand >that it is none of their fucking business >in the first place if someone makes a >choice that they would not (assuming >that they in fact would not – there’s >a LOT of screaming hypocrisy out there).
:Why is it none of their fucking business, :John, if their daughter or son, wife or :husband, etc., turns into a junkie and :destroys not only his or her own life, but :also the family, their business, etc? Wait a danged minute there, Dogman. Lots of ways to screw onesself and screw the family unit in the process. Generally these things are handled IN THE FAMILY. What I am objecting to is the meddling into these private, personal, psychological, moral, socital, and/or medical affairs by cops, prosecutors, judges, juries and wardens, all blessed by meddlesome politicians and the benighted idiots among the populace who reward all these creeps with votes and other means of support :Again, that’s the part about libertarianism :that scares the living crap out of me. What? That people will apply models of dealing effectively with other social problems with familial consequnces to drug problems and leave the gestapo out of it? :It’s like that we should abandon the :rule of law just because it sometimes :tells us that we can’t do something :that we might want to do. Pshaw. The rule of law is undermined most thoroughly by the existence of thoroughly creepy "culture warrior" laws like those that are at the heart of the war on drugs. At that point the so-called "rule of law" is merely another form of rule by the biggest brute on the block. Don’tbe surprised when people wonder aloud what’s so damned wonderful about it that they ought to ow allegiance to it and choose instead to build their own militias and armies to counterbalance the official occupation forces, aka the police. :Like speed, or discharge a firearm :in the city, or drink and drive, etc. All those plainly endanger others. So does driving while addled on drugs. No libertarian I know of opposes THAT sort of law. :Libertarians, as much as I try to :embrace libertarianism (and I really :do try), sometimes just sound like :a bunch of spoiled little brats. Only to people who deep down inside really do want to dictate how others must live, however much those same people bristle at others telling THEM how to live OR who don’t realize that most libertarians don’t have any quarrel with laws against behaviors that clearly harm the person or property of others or that truly recklessly endanger the same. Yeah, lots of quarrels about the details, but the basic guiding principle is quite clear and eminently reasonable. One possibly related point on which I would agree is that too many libertarians spend WAY too much time debating the esoteric details of alternative visions of "Libertopia" instead of doing useful work towards ridding THIS world of its most egregiously awful laws. >:They just don’t understand that it’s >:not much of a deterrent to lots >:of other folks. In fact, to a lot of >:folks, jail is actually a place to *find* >:drugs. >No maximum security prison in the US >is remotely free of drugs. If it can’t be >controlled there, it can’t be controlled >anywhere.
:Agreed. >:And they’re not anymore "evil" than >:the folks who foolishly keep pecking >:away at our LIBERTIES, those wonderful >:folks on our left. >The right and left peck both away at our >liberties all the friggin’ time. Neither >has a total monopoly on evil, true. But >in the case of the drug war, the mommy >state lefties tend to be considerably less >repulsive than the daddy state righties.
:And neither side is truly evil. :Fucked up, yes, evil, no. :Hypocritical, yes, evil, no. Agree to disagree. >:Misguided, perhaps, and ignorant, too. >:Maybe even stupid. >Neither left nor right has any monopoly >on those either!
:You bet. >:The drug war itself, as far as I’m >:concerned, harms and corrupts our >:society even more than the drugs do. >:It’s undermined our confidence and >:trust in our police and government, >:and it’s pitted us against each other. >The only thing I’d change is that any >real harm that drugs have done is a >pittance compared to the harm the >drug war has done.
:I’m almost in total agreement with you again. >:Most importantly, we’re seriously >:losing that war, and it probably a >:war that can never be won in a >:free society. >Exactly. >:It’s time to try something new. >:There’s probably nothing more stupid >:than redoubling your efforts on a >:losing proposition. >True. The tax money squandered alone >should count as grand larceny.
:No one hates wasting tax money more :than I do, but the real damage here is :being done to our confidence and trust :in the government, the police, etc. :It’s made everyone dirty. Definitely agree with that. The money squandered, though it is a truly obscenely huge amount, is nothing compared to the social costs of the drug war. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
Dogman wrote > They just don’t see the problem of drug abuse as a so-called > "victimless" crime, like you probably do. Druggies have families, > friends, etc., and they also become affected by a druggie’s decision > to become a drug abuser, i.e., it’s not just the druggie’s life that > ends up being ruined or made a living hell, eh? > They also think that incarceration acts as a deterrent for drug > abusers (and to a few, it does), because it’s such a deterrent to > them.
Another thing they don’t see is that the majority of people who use illegal drugs are NOT "druggies," as you call them, but responsible individuals who use drugs recreationally. This assertion was supported by a recent study on drug use (I believe conducted by NIDA?) that suggests that the majority of drug users are gainfully employed, participatory members of society. The drug war is a failure, a flop, a travesty, and for some, a tragedy. Some points to ponder, from PBS’s Frontline episode entitled "The War on Drugs": — There are now about 2 million people incarcerated in the United States, nearly half of whom are locked up for non-violent drug offenses. In states with high prison populations, violent offenders are frequently offered early parole to make way for non-violent drug offenders. — As a result of the rug war, the jail and prison population in the U.S. has nearly doubled since *1990*. — Until early in the Reagan administration, two-thirds of American tax dollars devoted to the drug war were spent on treatment and prevention and one-third was spent on interdiction. Reagan/Bush flipped these amounts and now the majority of the budget is spent on law enforcement and interdiction efforts. — The war on drugs was not escalated to its current level of madness until the Office of National Drug Control Policy (i.e., the drug czar’s office) was established (~1989) with Bill Bennett at its head. Bennett used his position to demonize drug use and drug users, despite statistical evidence suggesting that casual or recreational drug use was at an all-time low AND that the number of hard-core users, roughly 5 million or so, had not changed since the early 1970s. According to Frontline, this figure is still about the same. — Since the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences, it is not uncommon for first-time offenders to receive multiple-year prison sentences, as in the case of a young woman in Norfolk, VA, a 23-year-old college student given a 24-year sentence although she was unaware of her boyfriend’s drug-dealing activities. I believe Bill Clinton is either considering a pardon in her case or recently pardoned her. — Under the federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a user arrested with 1 gram of powdered cocaine would need to possess about 500 times that amount to receive the same sentence as someone arrested with a gram of crack cocaine. — The U.S. Sentencing Commission has recommended for (I believe) nearly 5 years that Congress modify the mandatory minimum sentencing laws because of (a) harsh penalties, (b) unfair penalties such as the crack vs. cocaine issue, (c) the inability of judges to consider a defendant’s situation when passing sentence, and (d) the exploding prison population. Members of Congress have declined to do so for fear of being seen as soft on crime. Oh yeah, and one more thing for Dogman: "Druggies" don’t "decide" to become a drug abuser. Addiction is a biopsychosocial illness, not a life choice. Cheers, RJT, who is now off her soapbox.
Response:
jdgraeme writes:
:There is plently of blame to go :around for both right, left, and :everyone else. But at least a few :prominent Republicans or conservatives– :William F Buckley, Milton Friedman, Gov. :Gary Johnson come to mind–have publically :called for drug legalization. You can add conservative names like George Schultz to the list of those who at a minimum want to see a radical reorientation away from law enforcement models. But there have been prominent names on the left calling for anything from marijuana decriminalization to full blown legalization, ranging from former mayor of Baltimore Curt Schmoke to Jocelyn Elders to far lefties of the Cockburn/Higgins wing of anti-establishment social criticism. Meanwhile, while the left/liberal "we’ll deny you your freedom for your own good" ethic never fails to appall, the social conservative "you druggies are the enemy of God’s country and we will chase you down and destroy you" ethic is pure evil. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
>Ken writes: >:Traditionally you are correct. But >:the Democrats keep jumping on >:this "drug war" to spend more >:money foolishly. >Well, the most bellicose liberal >drug warrior, Charlie Rangel, is >said to be softening his stance. >But there IS a lot of cross- >fertilization back and forth >between the favorite police state >policies of the left and the right.
What’s happening is that the worst liberal AND conservative excesses are being applied as "solutions" to the "drug problem" at the same time. It’s enough to make your head spin…entirely w/o the use of drugs. –Cindy
Response:
> [...] >Jim, there is NO war on drugs. It’s only the way liberals know >how to try and correct problems. > [...] > Naaah…the right is mostly to blame for the drug war fiasco, Ken.
There is plently of blame to go around for both right, left, and everyone else. But at least a few prominent Republicans or conservatives–William F Buckley, Milton Friedman, Gov. Gary Johnson come to mind–have publically called for drug legalization. Milton Friedman (the Nobel prize-winning economist, who describes himself as a small-l libertarian and a capital-l Republican) in particular has written a good deal of about how much harm prohibition is doing and spoken out for complete legalization many times. > And the war has the support of most of the people, too. > Until that support disappears, we’re stuck with it. > :>(
That support is the result of decades of lies, distortions, and half-truths. It’s hard to believe that even the American people would be stupid enough to support the war on drugs if they knew the real facts (including how much it is costing them). But perhaps that is overly optimistic. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dogman > http://www.i1.net/~dogman > For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: > http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html > "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire > sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ken writes: > :Jim, there is NO war on drugs. It’s only > :the way liberals know how to try and > :correct problems. > ???? What the hell are you babbling > about, Ken? That branch of the War > on Liberty that is known as the War > on Drugs is particularly popular among > conservatives. > JohnR > Pit Bull Libertarian
Traditionally you are correct. But the Democrats keep jumping on this "drug war" to spend more money foolishly. (ken)
Response:
Ken writes:
:Traditionally you are correct. But :the Democrats keep jumping on :this "drug war" to spend more :money foolishly. Well, the most bellicose liberal drug warrior, Charlie Rangel, is said to be softening his stance. But there IS a lot of cross- fertilization back and forth between the favorite police state policies of the left and the right. To paraphrase a great capsule analysis that was posted on the humans4anti-BSL list, liberals/Ds want to prove that they are "real men" and will support some gung ho gestapo policing policies and techniques generally favored by what I like to call the "Banana Republicans", eg home-invasion drug raids, and conservative/Rs want to prove that they are "sensitive" and "caring" and will sign on to lots of favorite liberal/D confiscations of liberties if it can be done in the name of "protecting our children". JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
Quote: Damn this angers me, and it would you too if you > had any personal experience with the subject like I do. Have you ever > suffered in pain before? I mean, Real Pain, and for a Long Long > Time?…Months!?
Yes. One of my MOST pet peeves! >They just BANNED outdoor smoking in Friendship Heights, Md.
Ooooh. I am just WAITING to violate that one personally! Jane Webb & Moonpie & Raisin Pie
Response:
Ken writes:
:Jim, there is NO war on drugs. It’s only :the way liberals know how to try and :correct problems. ???? What the hell are you babbling about, Ken? That branch of the War on Liberty that is known as the War on Drugs is particularly popular among conservatives. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian Never sneer at the power of a little pink squeaky toy!
Response:
[...] >Jim, there is NO war on drugs. It’s only the way liberals know >how to try and correct problems.
[...] Naaah…the right is mostly to blame for the drug war fiasco, Ken. And the war has the support of most of the people, too. Until that support disappears, we’re stuck with it. :>( — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman For everything you’ve ever wanted to know about our newsgroup’s many TROLLS: http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That seems to run counter to US Drug War Policy which holds that treating pain with opiates > sends the wrong message to society. The DEA has made it pretty clear that doctors who agressivly > treat pain will face criminal charges. > And what message would that be? > This is/should be criminal. The DEA has no fucking business telling a > Doctor how much pain medication he/she should dispense to patents. > Doctors take an oath to take care of patients, and prescribing medication > to ease pain is part of it. Not doing so is betraying that oath, and > IMHO, a Doctor should not be allowed to practice medicine if he/she > doesn’t. They have no business being a Doctor if they are going to allow > these fears to control their decisions. > Too many Doctors today will NOT prescribe meaningful pain relief because > of these fears, and many, many americans are suffering needlessly in pain > because of an over zealous DEA who thinks every Doctor who prescribes too > much codeine is doing it so their patients can have chuckles and giggles. > This is ludicrous. > The only reason the DEA continues with this silly cat and mouse game is > because it keeps them out of any real danger. I mean, what would you > rather be doing if you were a DEA agent, chasing after Doctors or drug > lords in Columbia? > Cowards… > They’ve decided to fight this war because it’s the only one they have the > capability of winning. > The government and insurance companies need to get their nose out of the > business of doctoring. Damn this angers me, and it would you too if you > had any personal experience with the subject like I do. Have you ever > suffered in pain before? I mean, Real Pain, and for a Long Long > Time?…Months!? > If you have then you know that the DEA desperately needs to get a life, > because this war is ludicrous. > (This post is not directed necessarily to anyone in particular, but in > general response to the thread.) > =====V===== > Jim Dompier > Island Shades > http://www.islandshades.com
Jim, there is NO war on drugs. It’s only the way liberals know how to try and correct problems. It’s amazing that a patient in severe pain cannot have an effective narcotic prescribed, but any junkie can buy drugs on most city street corners. Doctors are afraid to write. Liberals are also obsessed with taking guns away from the citizens. In Washington, D.C. guns are BANNED. But several months ago some teen thug shot seven people at the National Zoo. How could he have done that? Guns are banned there. Banning doesn’t work. It just strips the rights of law abiding citizens. PitBulls: They are being banned in most cities/counties with "panic legislation" just because a handful of gangsters use the breed for the wrong purpose. Pitiful. StunGuns: A neat, non lethal weapon used to protect yourself was banned because it could be "used to rob people." Ridiculous. Cigarettes: Maryland’s Governor pushed legislation to increase a pack of cigarettes by 65 cents. A pack now costs $2.50-$3.00 and many Marylanders drive to Virginia or Delaware to buy their smokes. A while in Delaware they can play slot machines because of dear governor vetoed slot legislation. He loves to BAN things! So — isn’t it pitiful that you cannot find a doctor to prescribe effective pain medication, can’t own a PitBull, and cannot own or buy a gun in some areas? They just BANNED outdoor smoking in Friendship Heights, Md. (This small town is in Bethesda, Md. on the MD/DC line. This should be interesting to see what happens. (ken) The Election Images Have Just Arrived! Good for a laugh! http://www.wtvn.com/staff/johncorby/election.htm