Posted on 04/16/2013 12:10:24 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Congratulations, you made absolutely no sense... yet again. you are batting 1000.
I was just asking the nanny nice not to spam, because a few days ago he(?) was warned to stop harrassing me in two threads with his abusive nanny tactics and told to change his trolling About Me page by the Admin Moderator.
A love of drugs over love of Country is a sad thing to witness.
Anyway, alchohol consumption did go up for certain classes.
Which classes?
The lower classes saw alcohol consumption go down. It went down in the middle classes as well. If it went up anywhere it would have been in "trust fund babies" of the time who thought it was fun to thumb their noses at the law.
But it is hard to see how they could have drunk more. They were mostly sots already.
When you read about that time you see people of that class were not having a glass or three but they were putting away three to five bottles a night.
And they were a tiny part of the population.
Criminologist refutes cannabis-related crime increase claims - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3005416/posts
Despite spamming me
As often as you spam FR with your government-worship.
with a person’s opinion
A scientist's explanation of the scientific flaws in the government's power-grabbing claims.
found on the internet in opposing hard data to the contrary, there is the fact that the British government downgraded marijuana, saw for themselves what a skyrocketing bad result that was
They unscientifically claim they saw it because governments love power - and some self-alleged "conservatives" love to let them have it when it serves their pet preferences.
I didn’t even post to you
That's how Internet forums work; if you don't want your words open to general reply, take them to FReepmail.
I had seen your link the first time.
And only this time responded - and that with a feeble rejoinder.
I did responded to your first post with the link.
But at least you just admitted to spamming.
Being opposed to the legalization of drugs is not government worship and only a fool would poison himself with drugs while proclaiming that their dependance on drugs proves their independence from government.
You are a welfare case nightmare in the making. Go back to DU and George Sorrows where you and your pro drug pushing agenda belong. I have seen numerous respected FReepers tell you how disgusting you are.
It will be hilariously funny when they start drug testing you for your welfare check - LMAO!
Bottom line is that you've jumped from one failed argument to the next in a desperate bid to justify your baseless preconceptions.
both of you under the guise of freedom and liberty are advocating polices that will result in more drug use
Possibly the case for marijuana, since for that drug the risk of imprisonment may in fact outweigh the risks inherent in the drug itself. But anyone who favors the legality of the harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco equally favors polices that will result in more use than if they were illegal - yet you don't oppose the legality of those harmful drugs.
especially by unsophisticated young people who are very vulnerable to grave harm.
Again: Nobody advocates making marijuana legal for minors.
Usually despite protestations to the opposite, such positions are taken to justify personal behavior and habits.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to post evidence that this is "usually" the case - you seem unable to distinguish your baseless conjectures from established facts.
It's hilariously funny when you hurl schoolyard insults and expose your utter lack of a logical factual argument for your statist position.
LMAO!
You laughed your brains and character out long ago.
This is why you fanatically push the legalization of drugs on FR (as others also noticed about you)... your biggest fear in life is that you will eventually have to pass a drugs test to collect welfare. Your only desperate hope to maintain your pathetic lifestyle is to get drugs legalized before that happens.
Still LMAO!
You clicked Post Reply but avoided addressing the link.
Being opposed to the legalization of drugs is not government worship
Your government worship is your referring to government claims as "hard data" and a scientist's explanation of those claims' flaws as "a person’s opinion."
and only a fool would poison himself with drugs
I don't, including the deadly drugs alcohol and tobacco - but if other adults make a different choice, that's freedom.
while proclaiming that their dependance on drugs proves their independence from government.
Nobody claimed anything of the sort - hearing those voices again?
You are a welfare case nightmare in the making. Go back to DU and George Sorrows where you and your pro drug pushing agenda belong.
Your personal smears expose the moral, logical, and factual emptiness of your statist cause. Keep it up!
I have seen numerous respected FReepers tell you how disgusting you are.
Having seen how they conduct themselves, I wear their professed disgust as a badge of honor.
Your personal smears expose the moral, logical, and factual emptiness of your statist cause. Keep it up!
Excuse me, spent enough of my time on a doped up welfare queen.
Flee, Bawlin_Weeper, flee.
“This is why you fanatically push the legalization of drugs on FR...your biggest fear in life is that you will eventually have to pass a drugs test to collect welfare. Your only desperate hope to maintain your pathetic lifestyle is to get drugs legalized before that happens”
I can think of few actions less likely to result in legislative change than posting on FR. If he was really so desperate he’d be marching on Washington, or anything besides arguing against brick walls in a small, faraway place on the internet. Or he could forget about welfare and deal drugs; your preferred policies have made that racket lucrative for the bold, the quick, and the lucky.
4,000 people tested, which cost the state more than $118,000. LOL! Of those 4,000 people --- hahahaha --- only 108 tested positive! ROFL! The state’s net loss? $45,780.Removing 108 people from welfare will save lots more money than 46K!
It's almost as if, when you have to decide between buying a sack of weed or keeping a roof over your head, most people will put the bong down while they're looking for work.Very good. Many more of those people not doing drugs habitually as a lifestyle are now employable. Add welfare reform to have the same kind of effect for people to start working and then do the full math on how much is spent and saved - including being a good example to their children.
I can think of few actions less likely to result in legislative change than posting on FR. If he was really so desperate he’d be marching on Washington, or anything besides arguing against brick walls in a small,As if we are talking about someone with a sane and rational mind? He(? gender neutral stoner) posted 29 times pushing the pro-drugs agenda in a thread on with 98 posts. You don't think that is desperate? That is absolutely feverishly driven and usual for him(?) in all threads about drugs.
But speaking of sick minds... Or he could forget about welfare and deal drugs; your preferred policies have made that racket lucrative for the bold, the quick, and the lucky.
You describe criminal drug dealers as "the bold, the quick, and the lucky." - as if you are writing a love letter to them.
Oh, Tublecane You are ZOTTED - LMAO!!!
Now I can only guess at what your next deranged, ignorant and time wasting reply would be.
I am glad that I was a small part in setting you off to get yourself ZOTTED, no doubt in a cloud of drugs thick with pseudo intelligence.
Scratch one pro-drugs agenda pushing Loser! :D
Oh. CZ75b, another pro-drugs Liberal who earned himself the ZOT.
surprise - surprise!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.