Well, in my wilder days, I used to take cold medicine for my cold and brandy and honey for my sore throat. A LOT of brandy. I also used to drink a lot of scotch while also taking cold medicine. Combining medicine and liquor never did anything more to me than enhance the buzz.
We are not dealing with rationality, science or fact, when it comes to the drug laws. We are dealing with witch hunting, religious fanaticism, vested interests, international conspiracy and 100 Billion dollars in annual illegal profits. I am now of the conclusion that anyone who supports the continuation of the existing drug laws is a traitor to the United States Constitution, an enemy of the American democracy and a supporter of the international drug criminal conspiracy, until proven otherwise. Although they previously might have been able to beg innocence on the basis of ignorance, the information is now so universally available this excuse is no longer viable. - J.S.Hochman MD, Executive Director, National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain
If Al Franken would have been caught with Oxy, liberals would be crying about the right wing vendetta. NOT, that he should pay the same penalty as anyone else.
I don't approve of abusive actions regardless of the motive. Physically or financially hurting someone else should be punished.
But I don't believe the government has any right telling an individual what he can or cannot put into his body. I'd like to know who Rush actually harmed and how.
If your behaviour only hurts yourself, it's nobody's business.
I thought I'd been pretty consistently libertarian in my posts. Maybe I didn't state my case effectively in some places, and that's my fault.
I haven't read all the news reports, so I don't know where it said that she'd get fired if she didn't get his drugs for him. Do you have a link or a source for that? I'd like to know if Rush is that kind of bully.
I also would say that if Al Franken got caught making his housekeeper find him dope, for YEARS.
This has been reported but we don't know if it is true. It also has been reported that the housekeeper found out about the problem and was extorting money from him.
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Spoken like someone who hasn't a fucking clue about the drug war.
Oh I forgot you know it all on this subject. Pardon me!  What percentage of drug "crimes" that are committed do you estimate result in arrest and prosecution, jethro?  How many of any crime get prosecuted? But drug crimes are prosecuted all the time. That is why they talk about nonviolent felons crowding the jails. Get real, dude.
Lack of enforcement doesn't make the people who do it any less criminal.
When people trot out the "alcohol is a drug, too" argument they lose track of the fact that it's a legal product. Maybe drugs are as harmless or benign as people say, and could be legalized because it's a decision people should be allowed to make. That's one argument.
But that point doesn't take away the fact that someone has to skulk around the break the law to acquire illegal drugs. That very act, in and of itself, says something about the individual. What they are will to do to acquire the product.
But that point doesn't take away the fact that someone has to skulk around the break the law to acquire illegal drugs. That very act, in and of itself, says something about the individual. What they are will to do to acquire the product.
Your point being? Â It could also have a little something to do with the government's well-earned fall from grace in terms of respect for its laws, especially its drug laws. They are immoral laws. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being.
I certainly know a lot more about the enforcement of drug laws, and the drug war, and illegal drugs in general than you. Well don't that just make you special.
 And I didn't say I knew it all. I said you were talking like someone who doesn't have a fucking clue about the war on drugs. That's consistent with your involvement in this thread throughout. You have a slanted view on this issue.   And you point to a few hundred thousand people in prison (most of whom have not gotten in trouble for 99.999% or the times they've broken the same law), and to other crimes that can't even begin to think about approaching the level of unenforceability that drug laws have. As I said there are lots of crimes that are not prosecuted.  The correct answer to my question, BTW, is:  ~.00000000000000000000000000000000004% of drug law violations result in arrest and prosecution.  Yes I am sure that all people that violate the law report each violation. Your stat is speculative just like the ones you rely on regarding the use of alcohol during prohibition.Â
It could also have a little something to do with the government's well-earned fall from grace in terms of respect for its laws, especially its drug laws. They are immoral laws. I disgree. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being. They could choose to obey the law.
Lance wrote: "They are immoral laws. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being."
Rick's response: Handsome language, but completely backward, IMO.
The people at tapa will be happy to know that Rick and I agree on something. Imagine that!
When people trot out the "alcohol is a drug, too" argument they lose track of the fact that it's a legal product.
actually, that's the point...the more harmful drug is legal while the less harmful drug isn't.
It shows just how stupid the law is.
What percentage of drug "crimes" that are committed do you estimate result in arrest and prosecution, jethro?
that would be a different number depending on the color of your skin...and an even more dramatically different number depending on your economic status.
The harmfulness of the drug is irrelevant to my point. I was talking about was how low people were willing to stoop to get their hands on the other products, less harmful or not. And what it says about them.
Lance said they were "pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being"
I say they're either hooked or they want to get stoned. And they're willing to slink around to do it.
I was talking about was how low people were willing to stoop to get their hands on the other products, less harmful or not. And what it says about them.
you mentioned alcohol and that it's legal.
well, we can take a look at Prohibition and find out.
For one thing, we know that when alcohol was made illegal, it created a lot of organized crime.
When people trot out the "alcohol is a drug, too" argument they lose track of the fact that it's a legal product. Maybe drugs are as harmless or benign as people say, and could be legalized because it's a decision people should be allowed to make. That's one argument.
the point?
your point seems to boil down to "maybe"
some point.
the point isn't if they are harmless...the point is that when you prohibit them, you create a lack of respect for the laws.
drugs are inanimate substances. all inanimate substances have the potential to be harmful.
you outlaw guns and you will create a disrespect for the laws.
you outlaw milk and you create a disrespect for the laws.
you outlaw cotton and you create a disrespect for the laws.
Is it bad to mix beer and cold medicine?
It's OK in moderation.
Define "Moderation".
:-)
Well, in my wilder days, I used to take cold medicine for my cold and brandy and honey for my sore throat. A LOT of brandy. I also used to drink a lot of scotch while also taking cold medicine. Combining medicine and liquor never did anything more to me than enhance the buzz.
you two are a couple of drug addicts
;^)
you two are a couple of drug addicts
I tell ya, I don't know what's worse. The feeling of this cold, or the feeling I get from the cold medicine.
I know exactly what you mean. A cocktail or two always made me feel better.
mj kills, crabs.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
LOL
J.S.Hochman MD
Who?
That Limbaugh, a first offender and recovering addict to pain killers rather than street drugs, is being unfairly harassed is clear to anyone but a political zealot. Conceivably, his harassment will end in court appearances and even a jail term. Will that please his opponents? "We got Limbaugh on an OxyContin charge." It might be a first.
Doctor Proposes Pot to Calm Hyper Kids
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117541,00.html
Because I don't consider what he did a crime.
If Al Franken would have been caught with Oxy, liberals would be crying about the right wing vendetta. NOT, that he should pay the same penalty as anyone else.
Torp, I suspect you're right about that.
Rush is a hypocrite regarding drugs.
THX, over and out.
I don't approve of abusive actions regardless of the motive. Physically or financially hurting someone else should be punished.
But I don't believe the government has any right telling an individual what he can or cannot put into his body. I'd like to know who Rush actually harmed and how.
If your behaviour only hurts yourself, it's nobody's business.
First of all, the housekeeper had freedom of choice. She got him his drugs, then she turned him in.
Secondly, if it weren't for the law, nobody would have gotten hurt.
Third, I am libertarian rather than conservative, and I deplore the anti-drug rhetoric of people on BOTH sides.
Some Republicans are coming around. William F. Buckley's reversal of his stance is only the most prominent.
I thought I'd been pretty consistently libertarian in my posts. Maybe I didn't state my case effectively in some places, and that's my fault.
I haven't read all the news reports, so I don't know where it said that she'd get fired if she didn't get his drugs for him. Do you have a link or a source for that? I'd like to know if Rush is that kind of bully.
I also would say that if Al Franken got caught making his housekeeper find him dope, for YEARS.
This has been reported but we don't know if it is true. It also has been reported that the housekeeper found out about the problem and was extorting money from him.
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Floyd K. Baskette
Alamosa, Colorado
quoted by Harry J. Anslinger,
Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
during the hearings on the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act
President Richard M. Nixon's
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
"Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding"
March 1972
Ronald Reagan
For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
But the laws are being enforced.
getting warmer...
Spoken like someone who hasn't a fucking clue about the drug war.
Oh I forgot you know it all on this subject. Pardon me!
Â
What percentage of drug "crimes" that are committed do you estimate result in arrest and prosecution, jethro?Â
Â
How many of any crime get prosecuted? But drug crimes are prosecuted all the time. That is why they talk about nonviolent felons crowding the jails. Get real, dude.
Lack of enforcement doesn't make the people who do it any less criminal.
When people trot out the "alcohol is a drug, too" argument they lose track of the fact that it's a legal product. Maybe drugs are as harmless or benign as people say, and could be legalized because it's a decision people should be allowed to make. That's one argument.
But that point doesn't take away the fact that someone has to skulk around the break the law to acquire illegal drugs. That very act, in and of itself, says something about the individual. What they are will to do to acquire the product.
But that point doesn't take away the fact that someone has to skulk around the break the law to acquire illegal drugs. That very act, in and of itself, says something about the individual. What they are will to do to acquire the product.
Your point being?
Â
It could also have a little something to do with the government's well-earned fall from grace in terms of respect for its laws, especially its drug laws. They are immoral laws. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being.
I certainly know a lot more about the enforcement of drug laws, and the drug war, and illegal drugs in general than you. Well don't that just make you special.
Â
And I didn't say I knew it all. I said you were talking like someone who doesn't have a fucking clue about the war on drugs. That's consistent with your involvement in this thread throughout. You have a slanted view on this issue.
 Â
And you point to a few hundred thousand people in prison (most of whom have not gotten in trouble for 99.999% or the times they've broken the same law), and to other crimes that can't even begin to think about approaching the level of unenforceability that drug laws have. As I said there are lots of crimes that are not prosecuted.
Â
The correct answer to my question, BTW, is:
Â
~.00000000000000000000000000000000004% of drug law violations result in arrest and prosecution.  Yes I am sure that all people that violate the law report each violation. Your stat is speculative just like the ones you rely on regarding the use of alcohol during prohibition.Â
It could also have a little something to do with the government's well-earned fall from grace in terms of respect for its laws, especially its drug laws. They are immoral laws. I disgree. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being. They could choose to obey the law.
Lance wrote: "They are immoral laws. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being."
Rick's response: Handsome language, but completely backward, IMO.
The people at tapa will be happy to know that Rick and I agree on something. Imagine that!
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons. How the heck can we keep them out of the country?
Answer: Don't try. Legalize them and then, if you feel you have to, regulate and tax them.
We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons. How the heck can we keep them out of the country?
We'll never totally prevent murder or child molestation either....
actually, that's the point...the more harmful drug is legal while the less harmful drug isn't.
It shows just how stupid the law is.
that would be a different number depending on the color of your skin...and an even more dramatically different number depending on your economic status.
you know, inner city blacks don't generally own airplanes.
The harmfulness of the drug is irrelevant to my point. I was talking about was how low people were willing to stoop to get their hands on the other products, less harmful or not. And what it says about them.
Lance said they were "pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being"
I say they're either hooked or they want to get stoned. And they're willing to slink around to do it.
you mentioned alcohol and that it's legal.
well, we can take a look at Prohibition and find out.
For one thing, we know that when alcohol was made illegal, it created a lot of organized crime.
what is a "speakeasy"?
what you call "slink around" is actually what Nixon was referring to...a disrespect for the law.
Either you've missed my point, or you're sidestepping it.
Reread it. I think I'm pretty clear.
the point?
your point seems to boil down to "maybe"
some point.
the point isn't if they are harmless...the point is that when you prohibit them, you create a lack of respect for the laws.
drugs are inanimate substances. all inanimate substances have the potential to be harmful.
you outlaw guns and you will create a disrespect for the laws.
you outlaw milk and you create a disrespect for the laws.
you outlaw cotton and you create a disrespect for the laws.
prohibition doesn't work.
"the point isn't if they are harmless...the point is that when you prohibit them, you create a lack of respect for the laws."
The law is not to blame when people break it. It's the fault of the lawbreaker.
Is that point clearer?
So, you're free to trot out the slaverery analogy. Or the civil rights analogy. That's usually your next move. Both are equally unsupportable.
Face it, Crabs, your mentality on this is that of a 12 year old who wants what he wants. And if he doesn't get it, it's unfair.