"Rick, where did crabby whine that the law shouldn't be enforced against him?"
No where specific.
What do you gather from his statements?
That this is a civil rights struggle as noble as MLK?
"People who are against the drug war aren't whining that the laws should not be enforced (aside from the possible exception of medical marijuana, where there is an unresolved conflict between state and federal laws) -- they are saying that the laws should be changed."
Fine. Until then, just heed the law. After it becomes legal, smoke all the pot you want.
"Saying that laws should be changed is a completely legitimate citizen activity, and I can't understand why it bothers you so much that you feel a need to degrade those who do it. "
He seemed to deal with what a I said all right. Why can't you?
He seemed to deal with what a I said all right. Why can't you?
Trust me, nothing you have said has had any adverse effect on me. This (degrading people who hold a belief you disagree with) is more your issue than mine or crabby's.
What do you gather from his statements?
That this is a civil rights struggle as noble as MLK?
No, I don't remember him saying that. I couldn't answer in short form "what I gather from his statements". He has made almost all the pro-legalization arguments -- dozens of legitimate and correct points that discuss the problems with the drug war and the benefits of legalization. The great bulk of them have gone unrebutted or unacknowledged. I haven't even heard anyone from the other side clear the most basic, first hurdle -- the contradiction between our country's wise (and vastly popular) decision to end the first Prohibition, and our country's deceptive and manipulative entry into a second one. (And our foolish continuation of it despite the fact that it has mimicked the first one in effect and results.)
The point of discussing this issue is not to debate whether illegal drugs are illegal -- that would be a waste of time, and has been. The natural goal of a discussion like this would be (I would think) to discuss whether illegal drugs should remain illegal.
As far as I can tell only jethro has offered any real arguments on the "pro" side of that debate.
As far as I can tell, Rick, all you have done is deliver snide digs and redundant (and obvious) claims about the illegality of illegal things.
You on the pro side want to put people in jail for doing an activity that in itself does no harm to another person. Every activity that you have cited as a harmful "drug act" is already illegal in its own right. Use of drugs is a consensual, voluntary activity. It is not in line with the model of our country to outlaw such activities.
Americans participate in so many unhealthy activities -- unhealthy for body and mind. From listening to depressing music, to making bad decisions or being in unhealthy relationships, or low self-esteem or laziness, or rudeness or isolation or eating 75% of what's for sale in the popular food market, or drinking or smoking or not exercising or boxing or driving or doing work under our cars...the list of undisputably harmful and possibly or potentially harmful activities that we allow people to engage in is so long that it could literally go on forever. And addictive? Extreme sports, skydiving, flying, Playstation, TV, chocolate, work, junk food, running, exercise...all fit the definition of addiction for a great many of the people who "use" them (plus of course alcohol, tobacco, and many many pharmaceuticals).
Choosing one slim and arbitrary set of "objectionable" activities and outlawing them does not make sense, and the results of the drug war have borne that out. It's discriminatory toward one type of "harmful lifestyle" -- and quite similar to the remnants of anti-gay laws in that respect. The truth of the matter is that the "lifestyle" is not any more harmful for most who engage in it than at least a million other "lifestyles".
The drug war quite simply doesn't make sense. The only functional justification for it is that we simply don't want to let people do drugs if they want to. It's one of the only set of laws like that (sodomy, prostitution, and gambling being the other big three) left. All of those sets of laws are being eroded, and that's a good thing. A better thing would be to just get on with it and stop tearing up our country and ruining lives and living in social contradiction. None of us chose to start this or have it...it was put upon us by people (largely dead people) who did not have the best of intentions for American people. Often via intentional deception.
There's a world of difference between making a law against people doing something that brings (provable, direct, immediate) harm to another, and making a law against people doing something just because you don't like them doing it. One is the essense of good lawmaking, and the other is social engineering and discrimination.
That's it for me here (actually, I have most of a reply to jethro I was working on that I might drop in sometime if I finish it). The arguments have been made over and over again, by people much more scholarly than I. Read Judge Jim Gray's book, or Sheriff Bill Masters' book, or William Buckley et al's "The Drug War is Lost" (available online). Or the Drug War Carol linked above. Or The Emperor Wears No Clothes. Or Reconsidering Marijuana. Or Drug Crazy. Or "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do". All of those are easy to find.
Or just keep thinking it's not something you need to look into or worry about or make a fully-informed choice about. After all, it's only your tax money, and (peaceful, and often sick) people being imprisoned in your name. Oh, and tons of unnecessary violence and gangs and societal degeneration. No big whoop. With any luck, neither you or anyone you care for will end up in the crosshairs -- as an innocent or a "criminal" -- of the drug war.
The war on drugs is joke. The bottom line has been and still is...drugs are accessible to anyone who wants them. The drug war has only succeeded in making drugs more expensive, thus taking more capital out of our country.
Legalize drugs and tax them. Combine those revenues with the savings from chasing down and incarcerating every petty drug dealer...and we might have enough cash to provide our children with a proper education that might make them less inclined to succumb to drug use to begin with.
Also, as an adult, I find it highly offensive for my fellow citizens to make illegal my decision to use a substance in the privacy of my own home.
Not disagreeing about the marijuana issue, and I have no experience (directly or indirectly) with heroin, but as far as cigarettes and the tobacco companys go I do differ slightly with you Bill. When I started smoking it was with full knowledge of the harmful effects and addictive qualities, but still I started, not because of the "pretty commercials" or other advertisements, because of my own reasons (mostly teenage rebellion). Thats why I started, I continue because I enjoy it, and I'll quit when it no longer suits me.
My dad contends, after reading a few studys and articles, that I smoke because of something passed to female children of female smokers (not male mind you, only female). I contend that any study that doesn't take into consideration the aspect of an individuals choice(actions and motivations) is highly suspect at best, and to me utterly ridiculous.
Here is one thing that points out the stupidity of the war on drugs: We can't keep drugs out of our PRISONS, so how will we ever keep them out of our country?
That this is a civil rights struggle as noble as MLK?
that it is a fact that these particular laws, these "drug" laws, where enacted for the same reason as the equally unjust Jim Crow laws, makes them part of what MLK was fighting against. They are among the last of the Jim Crow laws we need to get off the books. The laws were created out of hatred and a desire to villify and criminalize other races.
the only reason I could ever see for having one is if someone tried to make it so I CAN'T have one, then I guess I would need to have one because the law said I couldn't.
I just now heard on television, for the umpteenth time, that stupid anti-marijuana commercial which states "1 out of every three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana" A little thinking about that statement ought to raise some eyebrows. First of all, do they really mean to assert that every reckless driver is tested for marijuana? Not bloody likely, I say. Here's another crack in that pot: They don't say if those reckless drivers were under the influence of alcohol. Fact is, there is scant to zero evidence that marijuana, by itself, is linked to accidents or to deaths. And no proof that smokin bo is supporting terrorism! Please! What about that Home Grown?
I don't know about where you live but in MN they can ticket you for driving too tired.
so, we know that the drug laws aren't about stopping reckless driving, since we already have laws against that regardless of if you are on drugs or not.
so, if all the behavior that "drug use" supposedly causes is already against the law, what are the drug laws for?
I don't know about where you live but in MN they can ticket you for driving too tired.
that has *got* to be the easiest ticket in the world to fight, as there's no prima facie evidence as to your tiredness impairing you, as there is with a bac.
that has *got* to be the easiest ticket in the world to fight, as there's no prima facie evidence as to your tiredness impairing you, as there is with a bac.
I've only seen it used in cases where they fell asleep at the wheel, but techinically they can give a person a ticket.
I just now heard on television, for the umpteenth time, that stupid anti-marijuana commercial which states "1 out of every three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana"
Another crack in the pot is that the test for marijuana just tells you if the person has it in their system, not if they're high. It stays in the system for about 30 days after smoking. To my knowledge, there is no reliable test as of yet to tell if a person is high on pot (which is certainly what that ad seems to be implying).
Bill, I could care less about your service record. You did mention once you served on a carrier near Vietnam but never saw combat. That's all I was referring to. So quit being so gaddamn defensive everytime a non-veteran mentions something about the military...K?
You didn't serve, so your opinions on the military/veterans don't mean crap, holier than thou attitude is tiresome.
I just now heard on television, for the umpteenth time, that stupid anti-marijuana commercial which states "1 out of every three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana"
Just to make something clear, the commercial states that 1 of 3 that are tested for drugs test positive for marijuana.
Just to make something clear, the commercial states that 1 of 3 that are tested for drugs test positive for marijuana.
and why would they test someone?
because they suspect it maybe?
Crab, what KIND of meat?
well, if I had some big company that raised chickens and had given a LOT of money to and held sway over some politicians, I would certainly encourage them to pass a law against beef.
which is of course, besides the racist motive, the reason that Citizen Hearst and his cronies in the logging business wanted hemp, a source of serious competition for timber pulp products, outlawed.
it was a slick trick...use it to villify and criminalize the mexicans and blacks that Hearst hated so and at the same time outlaw the single largest source of competition to his business interests in wood.
It's just about the best example of BAD LAW that one can think of.
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840
Their personal correspondence and records reveal that U.S. Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and others smoked hashish, as did Benjamin Franklin and Mary Todd Lincoln. President John F. Kennedy is also reported to have smoked marijuana to relieve his back pain. Many of America's greatest leaders and Founding Fathers (including George Washington) were hemp farmers. Sources: National Archives, published reports.
Yeah I know JT. I'm a scumbag because I didn't wear a "military" uniform. You volunteer to ride around on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific for a few months and some how that elevates you to some god-like position.
I have great admiration for the veterans that saw combat, that were killed or wounded or kept the peace. That's why I am free. I do have some trouble with the blowhards who think because they wore a "military" uniform they are somehow better than you.
I recently purchased 3 blue star banners from a local VFW. My donation far and away exceeded their cost. The woman in charge of them thanked me profusely.
But I know in some people's minds, that won't count for shit.
of course Jethro...that guy in your picture spent a good portion of his life (more than 15 years) addicted to alcohol, not to mention that white powder he doesn't want to talk about.
Shuddering? Isn't that a typical bodily reaction to certain drugs? Maybe, crabs, you should kick the stuff and see if it is your thoughts that are causing it or the drugs.
you, however, are a hypocrite...blowing people shit for drug use while excusing it in your leader.
I am excusing nothing. He came to his senses years ago. Now if he slides into use while sitting in the White House I will be one of the first to state that he should be impeached.
and how 'bout those kids?...drug problems seem to run in the Bush family
I don't give a damn about the Bush kids. It isn't my concern and it should not be yours. That is especially true for someone that claims he doesn't want people in his business.
"Rick, where did crabby whine that the law shouldn't be enforced against him?"
No where specific.
What do you gather from his statements?
That this is a civil rights struggle as noble as MLK?
"People who are against the drug war aren't whining that the laws should not be enforced (aside from the possible exception of medical marijuana, where there is an unresolved conflict between state and federal laws) -- they are saying that the laws should be changed."
Fine. Until then, just heed the law. After it becomes legal, smoke all the pot you want.
"Saying that laws should be changed is a completely legitimate citizen activity, and I can't understand why it bothers you so much that you feel a need to degrade those who do it. "
He seemed to deal with what a I said all right. Why can't you?
Trust me, nothing you have said has had any adverse effect on me. This (degrading people who hold a belief you disagree with) is more your issue than mine or crabby's.
No, I don't remember him saying that. I couldn't answer in short form "what I gather from his statements". He has made almost all the pro-legalization arguments -- dozens of legitimate and correct points that discuss the problems with the drug war and the benefits of legalization. The great bulk of them have gone unrebutted or unacknowledged. I haven't even heard anyone from the other side clear the most basic, first hurdle -- the contradiction between our country's wise (and vastly popular) decision to end the first Prohibition, and our country's deceptive and manipulative entry into a second one. (And our foolish continuation of it despite the fact that it has mimicked the first one in effect and results.)
The point of discussing this issue is not to debate whether illegal drugs are illegal -- that would be a waste of time, and has been. The natural goal of a discussion like this would be (I would think) to discuss whether illegal drugs should remain illegal.
As far as I can tell only jethro has offered any real arguments on the "pro" side of that debate.
As far as I can tell, Rick, all you have done is deliver snide digs and redundant (and obvious) claims about the illegality of illegal things.
You on the pro side want to put people in jail for doing an activity that in itself does no harm to another person. Every activity that you have cited as a harmful "drug act" is already illegal in its own right. Use of drugs is a consensual, voluntary activity. It is not in line with the model of our country to outlaw such activities.
Americans participate in so many unhealthy activities -- unhealthy for body and mind. From listening to depressing music, to making bad decisions or being in unhealthy relationships, or low self-esteem or laziness, or rudeness or isolation or eating 75% of what's for sale in the popular food market, or drinking or smoking or not exercising or boxing or driving or doing work under our cars...the list of undisputably harmful and possibly or potentially harmful activities that we allow people to engage in is so long that it could literally go on forever. And addictive? Extreme sports, skydiving, flying, Playstation, TV, chocolate, work, junk food, running, exercise...all fit the definition of addiction for a great many of the people who "use" them (plus of course alcohol, tobacco, and many many pharmaceuticals).
Choosing one slim and arbitrary set of "objectionable" activities and outlawing them does not make sense, and the results of the drug war have borne that out. It's discriminatory toward one type of "harmful lifestyle" -- and quite similar to the remnants of anti-gay laws in that respect. The truth of the matter is that the "lifestyle" is not any more harmful for most who engage in it than at least a million other "lifestyles".
The drug war quite simply doesn't make sense. The only functional justification for it is that we simply don't want to let people do drugs if they want to. It's one of the only set of laws like that (sodomy, prostitution, and gambling being the other big three) left. All of those sets of laws are being eroded, and that's a good thing. A better thing would be to just get on with it and stop tearing up our country and ruining lives and living in social contradiction. None of us chose to start this or have it...it was put upon us by people (largely dead people) who did not have the best of intentions for American people. Often via intentional deception.
There's a world of difference between making a law against people doing something that brings (provable, direct, immediate) harm to another, and making a law against people doing something just because you don't like them doing it. One is the essense of good lawmaking, and the other is social engineering and discrimination.
That's it for me here (actually, I have most of a reply to jethro I was working on that I might drop in sometime if I finish it). The arguments have been made over and over again, by people much more scholarly than I. Read Judge Jim Gray's book, or Sheriff Bill Masters' book, or William Buckley et al's "The Drug War is Lost" (available online). Or the Drug War Carol linked above. Or The Emperor Wears No Clothes. Or Reconsidering Marijuana. Or Drug Crazy. Or "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do". All of those are easy to find.
Or just keep thinking it's not something you need to look into or worry about or make a fully-informed choice about. After all, it's only your tax money, and (peaceful, and often sick) people being imprisoned in your name. Oh, and tons of unnecessary violence and gangs and societal degeneration. No big whoop. With any luck, neither you or anyone you care for will end up in the crosshairs -- as an innocent or a "criminal" -- of the drug war.
Lance Brown 3/28/03 6:54pm
The war on drugs is joke. The bottom line has been and still is...drugs are accessible to anyone who wants them. The drug war has only succeeded in making drugs more expensive, thus taking more capital out of our country.
Legalize drugs and tax them. Combine those revenues with the savings from chasing down and incarcerating every petty drug dealer...and we might have enough cash to provide our children with a proper education that might make them less inclined to succumb to drug use to begin with.
Also, as an adult, I find it highly offensive for my fellow citizens to make illegal my decision to use a substance in the privacy of my own home.
No more from me, but...
...please at least read this speech given by Sheriff Bill Masters (sheriff of San Miguel County, Telluride, Colorado, for over 20 years):
http://libertybill.net/mastersspeech.html
(This isn't directed at you Chaz, just the room in general.)
Not disagreeing about the marijuana issue, and I have no experience (directly or indirectly) with heroin, but as far as cigarettes and the tobacco companys go I do differ slightly with you Bill. When I started smoking it was with full knowledge of the harmful effects and addictive qualities, but still I started, not because of the "pretty commercials" or other advertisements, because of my own reasons (mostly teenage rebellion). Thats why I started, I continue because I enjoy it, and I'll quit when it no longer suits me.
My dad contends, after reading a few studys and articles, that I smoke because of something passed to female children of female smokers (not male mind you, only female). I contend that any study that doesn't take into consideration the aspect of an individuals choice(actions and motivations) is highly suspect at best, and to me utterly ridiculous.
Here is one thing that points out the stupidity of the war on drugs: We can't keep drugs out of our PRISONS, so how will we ever keep them out of our country?
Crabs,
How do you feel about gun control?
that it is a fact that these particular laws, these "drug" laws, where enacted for the same reason as the equally unjust Jim Crow laws, makes them part of what MLK was fighting against. They are among the last of the Jim Crow laws we need to get off the books. The laws were created out of hatred and a desire to villify and criminalize other races.
I'm for freedom
guns are terrible things
but don't tell me what I can and cannot have
I choose to keep my life as gun-free as possible
the only reason I could ever see for having one is if someone tried to make it so I CAN'T have one, then I guess I would need to have one because the law said I couldn't.
O.K fair enough, so it's cool with you if we loosened uo the rules ?
what rules are you talking about specifically?
Should I be able to carry one wherever I want ?
well, in your own home, absolutely.
now, if you are out in public then you have to consider if doing so would endanger anyone else's rights.
The good Sheriff had one flaw in his speech. He made the assumption that people would actually accept responsibility for their actions.
Almost laughable.
Bill! Smoked dope for 15 years? Nah...never would of guessed that.
if someone's actions effect someone else's right to be free, that is not acceptable.
we already have laws to prevent those actions.
someone taking a drug does not in and of itself effect someone else's right to be free.
Marijuana Lies, Paid for with Tax Dollars
I just now heard on television, for the umpteenth time, that stupid anti-marijuana commercial which states "1 out of every three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana"
A little thinking about that statement ought to raise some eyebrows. First of all, do they really mean to assert that every reckless driver is tested for marijuana? Not bloody likely, I say.
Here's another crack in that pot: They don't say if those reckless drivers were under the influence of alcohol. Fact is, there is scant to zero evidence that marijuana, by itself, is linked to accidents or to deaths. And no proof that smokin bo is supporting terrorism! Please! What about that Home Grown?
and a whopping 82% tested positive for caffiene.
so what?
I was under the impression that there were already laws against driving recklessly regardless of what drugs you have taken.
as if it's not common knowledge that the legal drug alcohol is far and away the most prevelant cause of reckless driving.
I will agree with you there, Crabby.
We already have laws against driving impaired.
I don't know about where you live but in MN they can ticket you for driving too tired.
so, we know that the drug laws aren't about stopping reckless driving, since we already have laws against that regardless of if you are on drugs or not.
so, if all the behavior that "drug use" supposedly causes is already against the law, what are the drug laws for?
I don't know about where you live but in MN they can ticket you for driving too tired.
that has *got* to be the easiest ticket in the world to fight, as there's no prima facie evidence as to your tiredness impairing you, as there is with a bac.
the point is, are there any behaviors associated with drug use that intrude on another's rights that we don't already have laws against?
repealing the drug laws won't repeal the laws against driving while impaired.
Me?...Smoked dope?...No way man...I'm a freak'in Saint don't ya know.
Actually my first thought was a cartoon bubble with you stoned out of your mind on the edge of an aircraft carrier somewhere in the South Pacific.
that has *got* to be the easiest ticket in the world to fight, as there's no prima facie evidence as to your tiredness impairing you, as there is with a bac.
I've only seen it used in cases where they fell asleep at the wheel, but techinically they can give a person a ticket.
OK Bill I'm sorry. I got one word wrong in that sentence..."South".
Another crack in the pot is that the test for marijuana just tells you if the person has it in their system, not if they're high. It stays in the system for about 30 days after smoking. To my knowledge, there is no reliable test as of yet to tell if a person is high on pot (which is certainly what that ad seems to be implying).
are you saying that one out of three people would test positive for pot even if they aren't driving?
that's possible
and lots of people drive recklessly while straight.
I mean, what were the other 2/3rds doing?
and don't we already have laws against reckless driving?
I mean, if they found that 83% of all reckless drivers drank milk, would that mean that we outlaw milk?
Outlaw Milk
And Cell Phones. And Radios And Happy Meals. And Children! We can't have children who distract drivers to be legal. We will have to ban children.
Bill, I could care less about your service record. You did mention once you served on a carrier near Vietnam but never saw combat. That's all I was referring to. So quit being so gaddamn defensive everytime a non-veteran mentions something about the military...K?
You didn't serve, so your opinions on the military/veterans don't mean crap, holier than thou attitude is tiresome.
Awaiting the tirade.
I have it on good authority that 93% of all crimes are commited by meat eaters.
outlaw steak!
I just now heard on television, for the umpteenth time, that stupid anti-marijuana commercial which states "1 out of every three reckless drivers tested positive for marijuana"
Just to make something clear, the commercial states that 1 of 3 that are tested for drugs test positive for marijuana.
Hey Torp, please shut the fuck up now, K? You never served, and you don't know SHIT about Veterans and/or, the Military.
Here we go again....
Yeah Torp! You never Served! You don't get a say! You're opinion doesn't mean shit!
and why would they test someone?
because they suspect it maybe?
well, if I had some big company that raised chickens and had given a LOT of money to and held sway over some politicians, I would certainly encourage them to pass a law against beef.
which is of course, besides the racist motive, the reason that Citizen Hearst and his cronies in the logging business wanted hemp, a source of serious competition for timber pulp products, outlawed.
it was a slick trick...use it to villify and criminalize the mexicans and blacks that Hearst hated so and at the same time outlaw the single largest source of competition to his business interests in wood.
It's just about the best example of BAD LAW that one can think of.
You HAVE heard of SARCASM...right?
Yeah. Let me know when you have the art mastered.
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840
Their personal correspondence and records reveal that U.S. Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and others smoked hashish, as did Benjamin Franklin and Mary Todd Lincoln. President John F. Kennedy is also reported to have smoked marijuana to relieve his back pain. Many of America's greatest leaders and Founding Fathers (including George Washington) were hemp farmers. Sources: National Archives, published reports.
and of course Bill tried but could not inhale it.
Yeah I know JT. I'm a scumbag because I didn't wear a "military" uniform. You volunteer to ride around on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific for a few months and some how that elevates you to some god-like position.
I have great admiration for the veterans that saw combat, that were killed or wounded or kept the peace. That's why I am free. I do have some trouble with the blowhards who think because they wore a "military" uniform they are somehow better than you.
I recently purchased 3 blue star banners from a local VFW. My donation far and away exceeded their cost. The woman in charge of them thanked me profusely.
But I know in some people's minds, that won't count for shit.
unless, of course, you want to smoke a weed.
you can join up and smoke Iraqis, but you can't smoke a weed.
Bill! Smoked dope for 15 years? Nah...never would of guessed that.
I thought it was quite obvious?
of course Jethro...that guy in your picture spent a good portion of his life (more than 15 years) addicted to alcohol, not to mention that white powder he doesn't want to talk about.
GW apparently came to his senses. Maybe one day you will, too.
apparently...except for that pesky falling off couches thing
I have no interest in coming to Bush's senses
none
crabs, you aren't funny, so stop trying. it just makes you look even dumber than you are.
I shudder to think what you might consider funny
you, however, are a hypocrite...blowing people shit for drug use while excusing it in your leader.
I shudder to think what you might consider funny
Shuddering? Isn't that a typical bodily reaction to certain drugs? Maybe, crabs, you should kick the stuff and see if it is your thoughts that are causing it or the drugs.
and how 'bout those kids?...drug problems seem to run in the Bush family
you, however, are a hypocrite...blowing people shit for drug use while excusing it in your leader.
I am excusing nothing. He came to his senses years ago. Now if he slides into use while sitting in the White House I will be one of the first to state that he should be impeached.
nope...it's a typical reaction to encountering people like you.
although, yea...I'll bet your boy did his share of shuddering when he got the DTs.
and how 'bout those kids?...drug problems seem to run in the Bush family
I don't give a damn about the Bush kids. It isn't my concern and it should not be yours. That is especially true for someone that claims he doesn't want people in his business.
nope...it's a typical reaction to encountering people like you
Be my guest to leave and not return. I doubt anyone would miss you. I certainly won't.