dc6d8a4e   
   XPost: alt.prophecies.nostradamus, talk.politics.misc   
   From: cmdrlala@gmail.com   
      
   "M_P"  wrote in message   
   news:5d31521d-77be-4d97-8be1-68e8b92d13d6@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...   
   On Mar 10, 8:13 pm, "Doc"  wrote:   
   > "M_P"  wrote in message   
   > news:8937470d-9f81-4452-9a7f-2be2ae26ec87@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Mar 6, 10:11 pm, Doc  wrote:   
   > > On Mar 6, 2:46 pm, M_P  wrote:   
   > > > On Mar 6, 3:30 pm, "Doc"  wrote:   
   > > > > "M_P"  wrote in message   
   > > > >news:09e0fccf-3b63-41d9-8557-d84b9c0c1b92@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...   
   > > > > On Mar 4, 10:25 pm, "Doc"  wrote:   
   > > > > > "M_P"  wrote in message   
   > > > > >news:48dec467-a173-4e52-8f1e-cd19bb199401@s19g2000vbp.g   
   oglegroups.com...   
   > > > > > On Mar 3, 5:38 pm, Doc  wrote:   
   > > > > > > On Mar 3, 2:58 pm, M_P  wrote:   
   > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 4:49 pm, Doc  wrote:   
      
   > > > > > > > > I fail to understand why he's arguing for or against -- it   
   > > > > > > > > is   
   > > > > > > > > simply   
   > > > > > > > > that we all have the freedom to make decisions on what   
   > > > > > > > > chemicals to   
   > > > > > > > > consume, and he doesn't agree with others' decisions?   
   >   
   > > > > > > > No, that would be Werewolfy and Steven. I fully support   
   > > > > > > > freedom   
   > > > > > > > to   
   > > > > > > > make decisions on what chemicals to consume.   
   >   
   > > > > > > [...] No one can control our minds and bodies unless we are   
   > > > > > > ignorant,   
   > > > > > > weak,   
   > > > > > > scared, and disoriented. As long as we think clearly, and   
   > > > > > > carefully   
   > > > > > > consider the consequences of self-responsibility, we'll not have   
   > > > > > > to   
   > > > > > > worry about those who attempt to control us to satisfy   
   > > > > > > themselves,   
   > > > > > > their ideology, or their peer group. [...]   
   >   
   > > > > > Unfortunately, they can control the bodies of those they catch   
   > > > > > violating drug laws and incarcerate. Those unfortunates probably   
   > > > > > find   
   > > > > > scant consolation in the fact that this effort is in the larger   
   > > > > > sense   
   > > > > > a failure.   
   >   
   > > > > > LOL! Are you kidding? The "control" you speak of dissipates after   
   > > > > > they   
   > > > > > leave   
   > > > > > rehab or prison   
   >   
   > > > > Scant consolation while they're enjoying the hospitality of the   
   > > > > state.   
   >   
   > > > > > (if they haven't found drugs while incarcerated;   
   >   
   > > > > Which still leaves their life highly controlled (although it is   
   > > > > ironic   
   > > > > that in those cases the ostensibly desired control is not achieved).   
   >   
   > > > > > check the   
   > > > > > news reports, fella).   
   > > > > > As I said, no one can effectively control a person's desire to get   
   > > > > > high on   
   > > > > > drugs. Ultimately, the motivation is too strong, the availability   
   > > > > > is   
   > > > > > too   
   > > > > > easy, and that makes it all simply a matter of freedom of choice.   
   > > > > > We have a ton of laws, many thousands of enforcers, spreading   
   > > > > > surveillance...yet the drug usage continues virtually unabated. It   
   > > > > > really   
   > > > > > doesn't matter about "prohibition" if one wishes to stem drug   
   > > > > > usage.   
   >   
   > > > > Sounds to me like an argument for ending prohibition.   
   >   
   > > > > No, to me, I care little whether there is a prohibitional state to   
   > > > > cut   
   > > > > drug   
   > > > > usage, since I'm well aware that people will get their drugs despite   
   > > > > it.   
   > > > > What prohibition does accomplish is to incarcerate more, fill court   
   > > > > systems   
   > > > > with casual users, increase privacy violations, and generates much   
   > > > > black   
   > > > > market crime.   
   >   
   > > > So you care little whether more are incarcerated, court systems fill   
   > > > with casual users, privacy violations increase, and much black market   
   > > > crime is generated? Seems odd to me.   
   >   
   > > Care? And how much good has your supposed "concern" done so far?   
   >   
   > Straw man. The question is not whether caring by itself has practical   
   > effect.   
   >   
   > The bottom line of these tiring derivative debates on prohibition is that   
   > whatever you protest or support is added to the already massive pool of   
   > opining, evidence-bearing advocates and exponents. By now, that pool has   
   > turned into a veritible ocean. Still, the reality of diehard morality   
   > intertwined in legislation cannot be ignored. As long as morality   
   > overrides   
   > scientific or rational findings, as it has done repeatedly,   
      
   And is at least marginally less likely to continue   
      
   doing the greater   
   that ocean becomes.   
      
   Sometimes a poster can "get in over their heads" with attempts to find what   
   they believe are "clever" comebacks, and, once again, you've reaffirmed the   
   egoistic phenomenon.   
      
   > there will be   
   > nothing that "caring" will do to aid the movement towards ending   
   > prohibition   
   > permanently.   
      
   Still beating that straw man, I see. Have fun.   
      
   Projection won't help you at this point. Injection will. I suggest 30 cc of   
   aqueous strychnine.   
      
   > [...] Moralistic people who view legalized drug usage as   
   > "evil" won't give up simply because you've confronted them with scientific   
   > facts and rational thought. [...]   
      
   That it's them I'm addressing is another of your straw men.   
      
   If you use "straw men (man) anymore, I'll have to get a second bucket.   
      
   > > and, walla~! [...]   
   >   
   > I think you mean "voila." You should post less and read more.   
   >   
   > And that remark is what I mean by your attitude of trivialization,   
   > sniping,   
   > and personalizing a topic you oddly claim is so important to champion.   
   > "Walla" or 'wallah" is a well-known slang expression often used around the   
   > Western world. [...]   
      
   Evidence?   
      
   Are we now into a linguistics debate?  ;p No, it's still an egoistic   
   contest...but distractions can "amuse", can't they? Have you ever thought of   
   a parable of a flea on a dog's back that became fascinated with exploring   
   the dog's wagging tail, and how that might apply to your (lost) prohibition   
   *debate* of  "substance"?   
      
   > > > > Yet, one cannot reasonably expect that extremely moralistic   
   > > > > people will abandon their belief that drug usage represents a   
   > > > > deterioration   
   > > > > in morality, and therefore is ostensibly threatening to the social   
   > > > > structure. And one cannot reasonably expect that even if prohibition   
   > > > > is   
   > > > > ended, that its exponents will retire comfortably on an island   
   > > > > somewhere,   
   > > > > and give up reintroducing the control one way or the other.   
   >   
   > > > The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)