[Dane]

Our disagreement is more over the means than the ends, but you will only debate in terms of the ends, and then only in perjoratives, like "pro-drug", because while the end justifies the means to you, you rightly fear that it will not stand examination in the light of day

I have seen the "ends" of your policy and it happened in the late 60's and 70's where rampant drug use was no big deal and generally accepted.

Clinton tried to bring back those halcyon days back, but failed.

You have a right to defend the perpetuation of the drug culture of those times, but don't tread on me when I point out the failures of your "golden" era.

[tacticalogic]

I have seen the "ends" of your policy and it happened in the late 60's and 70's where rampant drug use was no big deal and generally accepted.

I repeat: You will only discuss the ends, and then only in perjorative terms, like "rampant drug use". You will not discuss the ends in objective terms, and you will avoid any discussion of the means, because you fear examining those means in the light of day.

[budwiesest]

..when I point out the failures of your "golden" era.

Golden Era:
60's hippies with flowers in their hair. or-
70's disco dancing in bell bottoms. or-
80's metal and punk with body piercings. or-
90's hip-hop/rap with hats on backward and pants around their knees.

Which golden era are we talking about? Myself, I'll take the Momma and Papas along with the British Invasion and whatever drug influences prevailed at the time to today's pathetic excuses for music and the police state/social services surrogate "families" thwarting personal responsibility.