3ecb01e2   
   XPost: alt.prophecies.nostradamus, talk.politics.misc   
   From: cmdrlala@gmail.com   
      
   "M_P"  wrote in message   
   news:93b273ca-61c8-4451-9cb6-d84a6fc0ea9c@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Mar 11, 2:22 pm, "Doc"  wrote:   
   >> "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.g   
   oglegroups.com...   
   >> > > > > On Mar 4, 10:25 pm, "Doc"  wrote:   
   >> > > > > > "M_P"  wrote in message   
   >> > > > > >news:48dec467-a173-4e52-8f1e-cd19bb199401@s19g2000vb   
   .googlegroups.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.   
   >   
   > I'm sure you'd like to think so. I'm happy to let readers draw their   
   > own conclusions.   
   >   
   >> > 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 [...]   
   >   
   > Nonsense. You're starting to bore me.   
      
   As I said earlier, we're not here to entertain you. Narcissists demand   
   satisfaction from subjective expectations being fulfilled by any person they   
   wish to exploit or who resists. You're here to debate, and that is what   
   you've said, or at least that is what you had as a goal. Might we see your   
   "higher intellect" exhibited by simply sticking to the subject? If others   
   are distracted, it is because you've engaged them, encouraged them,  and   
   continue to do so at your detriment. You might consider that having an   
   arrogant self-image, or having, conversely, a low one, is interfering with   
   your "substantive" debate presentation.  In real debates, with an   
   intelligent stable mature presenter, the subject is not allowed to detour --   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)