[BibChr]

...and all druggie defenders.

I find that druggie defenders sometimes have trouble following a complex reasoning process (who knew?), so I try to keep it simple. And STILL you didn't follow my elementary, two-step argument. Yikes!

Thing is, that's all I had to say. There'll be dozens more semi-coherent druggie defenders piping up, all upset and everything... but I'm really all-done, and on to something more complex.

Dan

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I find that druggie defenders sometimes have trouble following a complex reasoning process (who knew?), so I try to keep it simple. And STILL you didn't follow my elementary, two-step argument. Yikes!

Thing is, that's all I had to say. There'll be dozens more semi-coherent druggie defenders piping up, all upset and everything... but I'm really all-done, and on to something more complex.

Ahh, the self-righteous arrogance of the truly pantsed!

[Dead Corpse]

You HAD no argument. None. Zero. Zip. Nadda.

You made one false statement and a half-assed attempt at a straw-man.

Yep. You better run and hide your head in shame. Come on back if you can think up something that bears some resemblance to logical reasoning.

[MrLeRoy]

I find that WOSD defenders usually have trouble following a complex reasoning process, so I try to keep it simple. And STILL you didn't follow my elementary, ONE-step argument.

Unlike drug "crimes," the crimes you mention all have victims---which means that existing and potential victims (or next of kin) stand ready to resist the crime and assist in catching the criminal. Having people standing ready to resist the crime and assist in catching the criminal is, as you seem unable to grasp, a great advantage in fighting a crime---so fighting victimless "crime" is doomed to much less success than fighting true crime.

[motzman]

Sorry Dan,

Any objective person without a dog in this fight that stumbles across this thread will clearly see that you got pummeled, and that you have no logical arguement whatsoever.

That doesn't make you a bad person; just as me arguing the opposite of your position doesn't make me a "druggie".

It never ceases to amaze me how yourself, Dane, and even KC can be so rational and correct on other topics, but fall to pieces and act like knuckle-dragging liberals when it comes to this topic. Oh, well.

[RobRoy]

I am a professing Christian fundamentalist that believes that taking the drugs mentioned in this article is incredibly stupid. I have two teenaged and one early twenties daughters. I don't take drugs and must reiterate that I think it is stupid and dangerous and will most probably ruin your life.

That said, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE GOALS OF THIS GROUP! The drug war is every bit as stupid as prohibition was. Unfortunately, our generation is not bright enough to figure out it's costs as quickly as our fathers were.

That greatest cost is to liberty and the relationship between the police and the general public.

Will we have more drug addiction? It is not a relevant question to me because freedom trumps health, especially for ADULT citizens.

[jammer]

And STILL you didn't follow my elementary, two-step argument.

Well, here is an elementary ONE-step argument (from a drug free, alcohol free person): I mind my own damned business. You should mind your own damned business. The government should mind it's own damned business. Simple enough for you?