XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: bliss@sfo.com
On 09/09/2010 08:03 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> B Sellers wrote in news:i6bdop$t6p$1@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> On 09/09/2010 12:19 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> B Sellers wrote in news:i6b9up$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.
>
> I let it go in July of 1976. Sorry, kid, but I have been over longer
> than you been around.
>
>
That would be hard since I was born in 1937, old boy.
I used it briefly and experimentally in the 1960s after
I moved to SF. I never was addicted to it and the only need
for controlling it that I can see is if you have an addictive
personality or to keep it out of the hands of children.
When you have no further interest in tobacco you will have
no interest in punishing those who slipped through society's safety
net of laws against providing to children and have become severely
perhaps as you or my room mate have been.
later
bliss
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
