[That Poppins Woman]

I didn't say what he said was crazy.

I said he had good points, but then negated them when he engaged in the same Dadaism that he was railing against.

One doesn't have a very convincing argument against gambling when one spends every last dime they have at the slots.

His arguments would have stood unquestioned by me if he himself did not engage in his ridiculous tirade against consenting adults doing something in their home that hurts no one, with the only negative consequences to others being those that are created by the CRIMINALIZATION of their consentual act.

Or did alcohol prohibition and Al Capone somehow miss you in American History class?

[Garrisson Lee]

I took the paragraph disparaging drug use to be no more than the almost perequisite disclaimer that is necessary for one to state before one comes out against the prosecution of the so-called war on drugs. For in this forum as well as elsewhere, any criticism of the drug war gets you automatically labeled a heroin addict killer. If that short statement is removed, the article retains it's purpose, but your argument dries up completely.

Your analogy of the man whose fortune is wasted at the slot machine having no right to talk about the evils of gambling fails. Just because a man can not control the demons that are destroying him, does not mean he can not accurately see that destruction and realize the root cause of it.

You have unreasonably latched on to a minor clause in his statement and tried to use it to discredit the major thesis. Perhaps RLK comes from an environment where illicit drug use has had serious and devastating consequences to the surrounding community. Crack houses in the hood, are nothing like suburbanites having a joint on the patio. I am surprised at your approach on this thread, having read your comments in other places.