[That Poppins Woman]

The author makes some good points, but negates their impact when he engages in the same thing he's railing against, with this paragraph:

I'm as dead set against drugs as anybody in the world. There absolutely is no doubt in my mind that drugs will destroy America if not stopped. Drug use is not a victimless crime except in the dazed eyes of those who use the stuff. Those who don't use the stuff are subjected to the social, economic, and political environment created by those using the stuff and who in their state of oblivious escape care naught about living with the chaos they create. People not obliviously stupefied by drugs find living with the grotesqueness of that chaos impossible.

The fact of the matter is that LEGAL, PRESCRIPTION drugs kill more than illegal drugs. And alcohol and cigarettes kill more than legal or illegal drugs. In addition, both alcohol and cigarettes impose a much greater health cost burden on society than illegal drugs.

The fact of the matter is that given a transaction between two consenting adults, and the consentual taking of a substance by an adult does not create chaos. What creates the chaos is the imposition of criminal consequences for these actions. Therefore, the author's virulent diatribe against drugs engages in the same Dadaism that he is condemning.

Dadaism: Formal Definition - A western European artistic and literary movement (1916-23) that sought the discovery of authentic reality through the abolition of traditional culture and aesthetic forms.

Dada was an art movement that was ostrasized from the world of art as it swept through the world like war sweeping thoughout nations. Dadaism brought about everything new: new ideas, new materials, new directions, and new people. Dada had no uniform characteristics as many other movements in the arts have. Dadaist art can be interpreted by each person how they want to see or read it. Dadaism brings out feelings and emotions in each person dependent upon what he or she is going through at the time.

[RLK]

The author makes some good points, but negates their impact when he engages in the same thing he's railing against, with this paragraph:

-----------------

No he didn't engage in any such thing. You are just too feeble of cognitive mentality to understand what was said.

[Garrisson Lee]

You're full of it. He makes perfect sense.

[Mortimer Snavely]

"A little birds is playing
Her bagpipes on the shore.
Where the tourists snore.
'Thanks,' they say, 'it's thrilling.
Take, oh, take this shilling.
Let us have no more.'"

[unsycophant]

It looks like you're citing statistics available from drugwarfacts.org. If this is the case (or, if you're citing from another source that is using the *same statistics), then you may want to rethink your 'facts'. The statistics are flawed.

[unsycophant]

And in the interest of fairness, if you're citing facts(and you did say "The FACT of the matter is...") from drugwarfacts.org or a similar site that advocates drug legalization and so on, you should say so.

Numbers can almost always be crunched to support a theory or belief.