XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: bliss@sfo.com   
      
   On 09/09/2010 12:19 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   > B Sellers  wrote in news:i6b9up$c5r$1@news.eternal-   
   > september.org:   
   >   
   >> On 09/09/2010 10:13 AM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>> B Sellers   wrote in news:i6939n$squ$1@news.eternal-   
   >>> september.org:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 09/08/2010 02:23 PM, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>> "SaPeIsMa"    wrote in   
   >>>>> news:3I-dnZFMcNqSeBrRnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@bright.net:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> "RD Sandman"    wrote in message   
   >>>>>> news:Xns9DEC80ABF1E54hopewell@216.196.97.131...   
   >>>>>>> Peter Franks    wrote in   
   >>>>>>> news:i63tp3$7dr$1@news.eternal-september.org:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I have no problem decriminalizing drugs, however a couple of   
   > things   
   >>>>>>>> need to be addressed:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 1) How do you protect the children from exposure to drugs (or any   
   >>>>>>>> controlled substance for that matter)?  My suggestion is to   
   >>> increase   
   >>>>>>>> the penalties for supplying controlled substances to minors,   
   >>>>>>>> including alcohol.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yep.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You protect them the same way you do for other dangerous things   
   >>>>>>        EDUCATION.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I agree, but my response above was directed at increasing penalties   
   >>> for   
   >>>>> supplying controlled substances to minors.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 2) If someone choose to voluntarily take an intoxicating drug,   
   > then   
   >>>>>>>> they are immediately and effectively responsible for all of their   
   >>>>>>>> actions, no matter how impaired.  Any negative impact to others   
   >>>>>>>> (read: accident) shall be treated as (attempted) first-degree   
   >>> murder   
   >>>>>>>> and dealt with appropriately, including the death penalty.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I wouldn't go that far, but I would make them responsible in every   
   >>>>>>> way I could for whatever injuries resulted from that drug use.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>        Include alcohol?   
   >>>   
   >>> It is a drug.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> Including their long-term health issues.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Yep.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> For example if you smoke, all smoking related ilnesses are NOT   
   >>> covered   
   >>>>>> by your Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Bingo!  Exception for smoking (drug) cessation activities.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>        I am not in favor of the use of tobacco but I think we   
   >>>> have enough people already dying slowly in the streets and on   
   >>>> the sidewalks so I don't think any illness should be excluded   
   >>>> just because some fool brought it on themselves.   
   >>>   
   >>> I said that if you are attempting to quit, you should get help. If you   
   >>> are not, why waste the money?   
   >>   
   >>       People with bad habits get illness un-related to those   
   >> bad habits.   
   >   
   > I don't have any problem with treating that.  I have a problem with   
   > trying to treat their addiction or the result of it if they have no   
   > interest in the outcome.   
   >   
   >>       If they go untreated perhaps because they fear the   
   >> hassle they will be given about their bad habit by physicians   
   >> the may spread those illnesses unrelated to their bad habits   
   >> among the general population inadvertently.  People can have   
   >> bad habits and still are a part of the Public so Public   
   >> Health needs to take account of this population.   
   >   
   > They do that today?  What do you think would change?   
   >   
   >>       And how can you tell a tobacco smoking related illness   
   >> from a non-tobacco related illness with similar symptoms such   
   >> as influenza or pneumonia. There are plenty of sick people with   
   >> illnesses that may be hereditary who have symptoms that look   
   >> like they might be tobacco related  in a clinic but which   
   >> can be alleviated with treatment.   
   >>       I can readily see with your scheme great problems   
   >> arising.  For example did you know that junkies had HIV-AIDs   
   >> long before it showed up in the gay population.  Because they   
   >> were junkies no one bothered to investigate their symptoms   
   >> because junkies were assumed to be unhealthy.  Maybe they   
   >> even spread HIV to careless autopsy technicians and   
   >>    pathologists.   
   >>       Don't make the same mistake because you are annoyed   
   >> with smokers.   
   >   
   > I am not annoyed with smokers.  I used to be one.   
   	   
   	No wonder you are so harsh.  You really   
   ought to let that go after all you managed to   
   get over using tobacco.   
      
   	later   
   	bliss   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)