148172aa   
   From: blackhole@verizon.net   
      
   "Brother Nate"  wrote in message   
   news:7f5ba56b-782b-4659-955d-32b7c1f274b8@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
      
   Brother Nate!!  Thee Brother Nate!   
   As in Mr. Nathan E.?   
      
      
   > For decades I've been in basic agreement that the ideal goal   
   > of an intelligent drug policy is that laws should help people   
   > rather than harm them, and yes the historical vindictive approach   
   > has harmed a lot of people.   
      
   Sounds here like you understand some of the problems with   
   prohibition II, the sequel.   
      
      
   > I've just also always thought that "kids can get drugs" is a   
   > stupid starting point for any attempt to argue that drugs   
   > should be legal for responsible consenting adults.  Abuse   
   > of drugs by kids is a black mark, one that's all too readily   
   > exploited as a distraction away from discussion about the   
   > rights of adults.   
      
   I believe JohnR simply commented that those two things are not   
   linearly related.  Demand for, use of and access to drugs by children   
   is indeed a different beast than a drug's legal status.  How exactly   
   that translates into a "stupid starting point" for anything is better left   
   as an exercise in mental masturbation over at Brother Nate's school   
   of alchemy.   
      
   You're slipping Brother Nate.  At one time, you'd twist things around but   
   at least make an effort to stay on focus to what was actually posted.   
      
   Is this really Nathan?  Or a NathanBot?   
      
      
   > Unless you think drugs should be legalized for 13 year olds   
   > too, the bottom line is that even after legalization for adults   
   > they'd still be forbidden fruit to the kids, and you'd ultimately   
   > be better served by either not raising that point at all, or   
   > simply trying to suggest realistic ways to keep kids out of   
   > the medicine cabinet.   
      
   Unless you think Grandmothers should die alone and in pain, the   
   bottom line is that prohibition II is contributing to a very expensive   
   decline in the quality of life, and it's goal [does it really have one?]   
   - the generally perceived goal of lower drug use anyway - seems   
   like some distant fantasy, just as far away as ever.   
      
   But I suppose raking a tax-paying public over the coals is more of a   
   marathon than a sprint, right?   
      
   Be good or be good at it!   
   DragonAss  [aka Sloppy]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)