Posted on 01/03/2003 9:58:54 AM PST by MrLeRoy
What motivates you to frequent such places?
Being a geologist for an environmental services firm that does a lot of work for Caltrans (sampling for aerially deposited lead in the surface and just about anything you can think of in the subsurface prior to construction or retrofit work on freeway structures).
Nothing quite drives home the magnitude of SF's "homeless" lunacy than having your driller say "don't step backward or you'll need a hepatitis shot" and turning to see that pile of dirt you saw out of the corner of your eye is actually a 2-3 foot pile of human excrement and TP up against the abutment...
And the loss of tax revenue when productive people are put in prison---or shot in drug-turf battles.
Tell on---which did he do?
For entirely diferent reasons.
EBUCK
Watch the tobacco companies switch to pot and start lobbying Congress ;-)
Like I said, I'll buy into it if the cost is guaranteed to be at least a net zero and the rest of folks get the means to defend themselves from the users even if there is debate over whether that threat is real or percieved. We don't need to argue over those concepts, pro legalizers will probably get what they want if they legislatively insure those two concerns.
Do you support the legality of alcohol? If so, have you received guarantees on cost and safety?
That's well known; even a National Institute for Drug Abuse scientist says so.
Messing with an already off-kilter mind is clearly not a good idea. But it remains the case that alcohol is much likelier to trigger violence.
Do you support the legality of alcohol? If so, have you received guarantees on cost and safety?
Irrelevant. Just because something was or wasn't done in the past with respect to an issue has no bearing on whether to do it now with a completely different issue. My proposal would automatically apply to alcohol in the matter of defense anyway, and the no net cost part could be retroactived in too.
Besides, if there were more opportunities for people accosted or harmed by obnoxious drunks to shoot them, the world would probably be a better place ;)
For whatever its worth, over 500 thousand a year die due to the use of tobbaco, about 250 thousand die from booze and not one death has been reported caused by pot.
One of the reasons drug legalizers always get the dog walked on them in debates is because they utilize this supposed "statistic". As if sucking the smoke of one type of burning leaves into your lungs is significantly less hazardous than another? Neither is extremely bright from a long term health standpoint, the only reason you don't have a "pot" column is that no one has an agenda to regulate it or tax it for its evils (since its illegal) and therefore they don't actively track it like booze or smokes.
It's NOT "a completely different issue"---it's just another mind-altering substance.
My proposal would automatically apply to alcohol in the matter of defense anyway, and the no net cost part could be retroactived in too.
That's not the point---the point is that if your real objection to drug legalization is higher costs it would stand to reason that you'd seek to lower your current costs by banning currently legal recreational drugs like alcohol.
And if pot were legal, it would stop the drug company contributions overnight. Although I'm not sure why, I'll just take your word for it.
That's not the point---the point is that if your real objection to drug legalization is higher costs it would stand to reason that you'd seek to lower your current costs by banning currently legal recreational drugs like alcohol.
Thats a facetious arguement, you as well as I know that to ban alcohol now would result in the instantaneous unelection of anyone proposing it, if not open rebellion. I just outlined what would possibly get legalizers what they want, don't shoot the messenger. Arguing the fairness, logic or constitutionality of currently legal substances vs pot is stupid. You have to lay out your desire and provide guarantees and insurances as to how it [lagalization] won't impact the anti crowd who currently control the majority and fear its legalization.
It would also help on the no cost side if many of the proponents weren't these moronic medical marijuana advocates who also subscribe to the free clinics and medical care for everyone [read - Socialism] dogma.
Summary- Root out or alienate the socialists from the pro crowd and guarantee and\or insure net zero or negative cost benefit and readily available personal defense for everyone. Be prepared to offer a sunset clause, it will provide anti 's an incentive to try and pro's the incentive to police their own.
I'm sure they're happier with the illegal bribe money.
Actually, you're probably right here in a mass psychological sense. Tax money is transparent and open to competition among politicians while bribe money isn't. Better to get whats sure than fight for possibilities, particularly if you're in a small, low population state.
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.