Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wolfie
"If I smoke marijuana, I may not be led to rob a store. But I can lose my job and then be motivated to steal,"

If there was a Nobel Prize for Sophistry, this gentleman's statement should certainly place him in consideration.

What a shameless, bought-and-paid-for, lickspittle!

It's hard to believe that a gubmint pension can be that enticing.

3 posted on 12/16/2005 7:36:14 AM PST by headsonpikes (The Liberal Party of Canada are not b*stards - b*stards have mothers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: headsonpikes

The guy was probably hired by some government agency right out of college and has never done an honest days work in his life. That's the problem with land use planners also.


5 posted on 12/16/2005 7:41:02 AM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: headsonpikes
If there was a Nobel Prize for Sophistry, this gentleman's statement should certainly place him in consideration.

The statement is hyperbole, but it does reflect the fact that overall the greatest harmful consequence of a person using marijuana is getting arrested for it, and the consequences that follow from that.

9 posted on 12/16/2005 7:59:22 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: headsonpikes

"If I smoke marijuana, I may not be led to rob a store. But I can lose my job and then be motivated to steal," John Fielder, a clinical psychologist... told the Senate committee last session.

It's the little things that expose a person. Note that Fielder said "I", rather than If a person... 

"If I  a person smokes marijuana, I the person may not be led to rob a store. But I the person can lose my his job and then be motivated to steal,"

If he, John Fielder, is capable of acting irresponsibly, he assumes that any person could be as irresponsible as he sees himself. True, virtually any person could be as irresponsible, yet it is Fielder that exposes himself. Apparently without pot prohibition he wouldn't know how to act responsibly.

Obviously his response to this would be something along the lines of: "Oh, but I wasn't speaking about myself, it is other people that could act irresponsibly."

My response: so that's why you spoke in the first person, because you were speaking about other people. Depends on the meaning of is, right?

46 posted on 12/22/2005 6:18:18 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson