Politics As Usual

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
No. I was talking about the latter and then you didn't like the way that made you look so then you tried to find fault with me by talking about the former. Whatever. If I do something amoral (in your opinion), that doesn't excuse what you do. So it is silly to even go that route.

Dude, I am starting to think you are on crack. My reference to Budweiser was to point out the lack of violence associated with the sale of alcohol today when it is legal and contrast that to how much violence was associated with the sale of alcohol under prohibition. Much violence was associated with bootleg alcohol under prohibition as organized crime ran a large part of the bootleg business in this country back then. You may have heard of this man, his name was Al Capone. He had alot of people killed to protect his business.

Ahh, this is humor. You say that my SUV may contribute to terrorism at some point. I say your motor scooter may also. However, as explained ad nauseum, I explain how you have already helped kill thousands of Americans every year for the last 50. Rather than saying "my illegal conduct does not cause murder", you merely note that there may be other ways for society to reduce the violence besides you taking responsibility. God forbid we expect people to abide by the law and take responsibility for themselves.

And this is before the left even chimes in. No wonder our tax rates are so high. If you people would take responsibility for yourselves and demand that others do the same, maybe we wouldn't have the culture of irresponsibility. And some wonder why I express no ambivalence about the possibility of executing drug users.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And some wonder why I express no ambivalence about the possibility of executing drug users.

No we don't wonder why. It is because you are insane.

Alot of innocent people die or are harmed by drunks. Kids abused and neglected, people killed by drunk drivers, domestic abuse. Should we make alcohol illegal again? And if violence and organized crime took over the bootlegging trade, would you advocate executing all drinkers if the alcohol was illegal?

The people morally culpable for the violence associated with the drug trade are those who insist on keeping drugs illegal.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
No we don't wonder why. It is because you are insane.

Alot of innocent people die or are harmed by drunks. Kids abused and neglected, people killed by drunk drivers, domestic abuse. Should we make alcohol illegal again? And if violence and organized crime took over the bootlegging trade, would you advocate executing all drinkers if the alcohol was illegal?

The people morally culpable for the violence associated with the drug trade are those who insist on keeping drugs illegal.

Holy shit, I find myself agreeing with you 100%. It's been a long time since I looked at The Plan. Is this part of it, or do I need to alter The Plan?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
No we don't wonder why. It is because you are insane.

Alot of innocent people die or are harmed by drunks. Kids abused and neglected, people killed by drunk drivers, domestic abuse. Should we make alcohol illegal again? And if violence and organized crime took over the bootlegging trade, would you advocate executing all drinkers if the alcohol was illegal?

The people morally culpable for the violence associated with the drug trade are those who insist on keeping drugs illegal.

It already is illegal when people get hurt. And they are wrong and they get punished. Should they not be if they really really didn't mean to hurt anybody?

If you are learning nothing else, you should know that your exposed interest in justifying your immoral and illegal self indulgence leaves your reasoning suspect.

As for the insanity, I note that til your last word you still can't explain how the violence happens if junkies didn't provide the demand. For the purposes of libertarianism, I'd prefer if you and the rest of the recovery crowd stay off my corner. It makes me feel dirty.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
It makes me feel dirty.

You are dirty. You have funded the terrorists with your gluttonous gasoline consumption. Keep up the good work and we will all be dead soon.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
You are dirty. You have funded the terrorists with your gluttonous gasoline consumption. Keep up the good work and we will all be dead soon.

I am dirty for standing on this side of the political divide with you, as much as Dukakis was dirty for standing on his side with Willie Horton.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I am dirty for standing on this side of the political divide with you, as much as Dukakis was dirty for standing on his side with Willie Horton.

at first Kerry thought Willie Horton should be freed, then he thought he shouldn't.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree with everything you say including the lack of violence associated with the trade but the part about no innocent victims is stretching it. I think there would still be innocent victims associated with drug use (as opposed to the drug trade), just as there are innocent victims of alcohol use. For instance, children born to mothers who drink heavily or people killed by drunk drivers or the domestic violence that is fueled so often by alcohol consumption.

I was thinking in terms of drive by shootings. Didn't mean to suggest this would be a cure all.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
How much do Budweiser drinkers pay to keep last call going for an extra 5 minutes?

Hint - it would be a lot more if alcohol was illegal.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As for the "different category" question, yes, I do. "drugs" are illegal. People who use "drugs" aren't civil rights protestors sitting at an integrated lunch counter. They are selfish and immoral people who create a demand knowing that without their demand, thousands of Americans, thousands of South Americans, and thousands of others would be alive. Among those thousands are an occasional child in an inner city.

Selfish, perhaps. But immoral? Something tells me that your views on this are driven by a signifiant personal experience.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me Like I said, I'm for legalization. But you tell me that those murders would occur if users weren't using. Illegally. You aren't saying that, are you?

You seem to think that most of the murders are done by those using, rather than those dealing. I think this is a faulty assumption.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hint - it would be a lot more if alcohol was illegal.



Selfish, perhaps. But immoral? Something tells me that your views on this are driven by a signifiant personal experience.



You seem to think that most of the murders are done by those using, rather than those dealing. I think this is a faulty assumption.

1, 2 and 3:

1: Its not illegal to keep serving after last call (OK, OK, that was a bit gray... how about, how much do they pay to bribe bars to stay open late)?

2: Isn't selfishness immoral? How is it moral for the individual to decide which laws they will obey? I mean, we ain't talking about sitting at the front of the bus or disparate treatment based on individual immutable characteristics. And if a right-wing junkie even hints at the words "constitutional right of privacy" as justifying drug use, our coalition is built on a balsa bridge.

And yes, more than my share of experiences with victimized children.

3: Actually, I'd have to check to be sure, but my impression was that a significantly disproportionate majority of those in the criminal justice system for any reason beyond administrative crimes test positive for narcotics. That includes shooters.

ETA this link: 63 percent of males. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ocpa/Annual/chap6.htm

I hope the premise isn't that drug use is a religion of peace.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
3: Actually, I'd have to check to be sure, but my impression was that a significantly disproportionate majority of those in the criminal justice system for any reason beyond administrative crimes test positive for narcotics. That includes shooters.

What point are you making? Many of them were put in jail because they were caught with drugs. It would be expected that they test positive. The drug offenses are malum prohibitum offenses. You do know what that means don't you?

As for those who are there on non-drug offenses, there is a difference between correlation and causation.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
What point are you making?

You really aren't playing dumb, are you?

The stats are responsive to this quote from Clubbie (one which you earlier also implied): "You seem to think that most of the murders are done by those using, rather than those dealing"

Originally posted by Not Me
Many of them were put in jail because they were caught with drugs. It would be expected that they test positive

You really aren't playing dumb, are you?

Why would it be expected? Most organization don't want their employees using drugs, and the overwhelming amoung of jail time for narcotics is for dealing, not using.

Originally posted by Not Me
As for those who are there on non-drug offenses, there is a difference between correlation and causation.

You really aren't playing dumb, are you? There is a difference in the definitions of correlation and causation. There is an area of overlap between the two also.

You'd make a great Democrat.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Whatever. If y'all don't like it, raise the gas tax and make the poor people take the bus. I'll still put 25 gallons a week into my SUV for 30 or so miles of weekly driving. Its soooo comfy. And safe.

You didn't think of that tax thingy, did you? Well, thats what crack might have done to you sweetie. Consumption taxes would solve lots of problems.

What if, instead of raising the gas tax (or just raising the gas tax), we increased the gas guzzler tax? So that the sticker price on your SUV would rise, say, $6,000? ($12,000 if it's a Hummer)

A nice alternative to the CAFE standards, in my view.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Actually, we were talking about your contribution to terrorism and violence against Americans as demander of illegal narcotics, and our potential contribution to terrorism and violence against Americans as demanders of legal gasoline.

I must be stoned, because I don't understand this. If I buy marijuana from Mendocino (hypothetically speaking, of course), how does that support terrorism? Cocaine from Colombia may support terrorism and violence, but not against Americans. Opiates seem to be the only drug with a significant connection to anti-US terror networks, and even that has been reduced by the fall of the Taliban.

In other words, what are you talking about? The discussion of how American dependence on MidEast oil jeopardizes our interests is a serious and important one, and shifting the focus to drug use seems pointless.

But maybe you have some factual basis for what you are saying.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What if, instead of raising the gas tax (or just raising the gas tax), we increased the gas guzzler tax? So that the sticker price on your SUV would rise, say, $6,000? ($12,000 if it's a Hummer)

A nice alternative to the CAFE standards, in my view.

No, because it's a fixed cost of ownership. The only good way to attack consumption is to increase its marginal cost.

And I believe that Hummers are exempt from the guzzler tax now, because of their size.