From: Alan Baker on
In article
<117824c1-788e-4af5-8479-922457a0c6fe(a)r11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 14, 4:44�am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <59ace2a0-ef4d-4b2a-8514-301868861...(a)a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > �"John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 12, 8:06�pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:54:31 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >
> > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On May 10, 8:20=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >
> > > > >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >If narcotics are made legal and easy to buy, will drug addiction -
> > > > >> >and
> > > > >> >the many problems it imposes on society - go up or down?
> >
> > > > >> The many problems imposed on society by drugs being illegal will go
> > > > >> down.
> >
> > > > >Those problems include violent crime, disease, poverty, prostitution,
> > > > >child abuse and neglect, homelessness. Why would legalizing drugs
> > > > >cause them to diminish?
> >
> > > > I have no doubt that legalizing drugs would reduce violent crime
> > > > significantly. �It would reduce those diseases associated with people
> > > > sharing needles like HIV and hepatitis. �It would probably reduce
> > > > homelessness a bit. �Prostitution would stay about the same but women
> > > > would no longer have to sell themselves to pay for their drug habits.
> > > > Children of addicts would also benefit because their parent's would no
> > > > longer be in jail and have to steal to buy drugs.
> > > > What people fail to understand is that most of the negative things
> > > > associated with drug abuse are the result of drugs being illegal, not
> > > > the drugs themselves.
> >
> > > You have yet to explain how or why legalizing drugs would have any of
> > > these effects. Legal or illegal, people still have to pay for them.
> >
> > Because a black market charges far more for drugs than they actually
> > cost to provide.
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
> So does any market. It's called making a profit.

Yup. But black markets charge far far more.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Don Kirkman on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:42:17 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>In article <va9pu51uhst8rar2kqthuicb8hbi7mjoef(a)4ax.com>,
>howard(a)brazee.net says...

>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:59:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>> >> >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to
>> >> >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing,"
>> >> >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is
>> >> >deportation.

>> >> What if the person is innocent?

>> >Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have proof
>> >of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times. This is
>> >a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US.

>> >Therefore, there can be no innocence.

>> Citizens can be charged with illegal entry.

>Any one can be charged with any thing. Courts do not have a finding of
>innocence, it is either guilty or not guilty.

It's rare, but in fact there are times when, after considering all the
evidence against a defendant, the judge will pronounce him factually
innocent. Even Google knows about it. Close, but only a cigarillo.
--
Don Kirkman
donsno2(a)charter.net
From: John B. on
On May 14, 1:47 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <855cu5Ffe...(a)mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark-593FF9.07524114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > In article <MPG.2657015a88d3397989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > >  BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <alangbaker-201299.01450114052...(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > > > alangba...(a)telus.net says...
>
> > > > > In article <MPG.26564053374fa0c7989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > > > >  BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article <sfjmu5h5ebhlmmtja8mpno8a503sr37...(a)4ax.com>,
> > > > > > how...(a)brazee.net says...
>
> > > > > > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:33:27 -0700, Loudon Briggs <lar...(a)bbz..net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT
> > sent to
> > > > > > > >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a
> > "hearing,"
> > > > > > > >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is
> > > > > > > >deportation.
>
> > > > > > > What if the person is innocent?
>
> > > > > > Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have
> > proof
> > > > > > of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times..
> > This is
> > > > > > a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US.
>
> > > > > > Therefore, there can be no innocence.
>
> > > > > Cite the actual law...
>
> > > > Sorry, Canada Boy, I'm not interested in playing your game.
>
> > > Game, set, and match to Alan.
>
> > Only you would declare a troll to be victorious.
>
> > -Greg
>
> Only you would deny the undeniable.

No, there are others who would and often do.
From: Alan Baker on
In article <MPG.26570424d9899a39989f0a(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <i69pu5pg0b3590rfrd7rv7titjvin897ku(a)4ax.com>,
> howard(a)brazee.net says...
> >
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:56:42 -0700, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In this situation it's not really a matter of guilt or innocence but
> > >of documented or undocumented. Undocumented folks are sent home,
> > >convicted (not-innocent) folks generally serve their time in our
> > >facilities, at least in California, and are then turned over for
> > >deportation--thus adding to the cost of running our jails and prisons.
> >
> > So I would be sent to Colorado if I didn't have my proof of
> > citizenship?
>
> You seem to miss the point. If you are a citizen you do not have to
> carry proof on your person at all times. Your argument fails on its
> face.
>
> The federal law states that non-citizens are required to carry their
> proof of ability to be in the US on their person at all times.

Cite this law...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: BAR on
In article <clark-18AE4C.11152114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>
> In article <MPG.26571432bedc66d3989f0d(a)news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <clark-A9BFC7.07535414052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > >
> > > In article <MPG.26570128e6ab5426989f03(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <va9pu51uhst8rar2kqthuicb8hbi7mjoef(a)4ax.com>,
> > > > howard(a)brazee.net says...
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:59:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent
> > > > > >> >to
> > > > > >> >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing,"
> > > > > >> >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is
> > > > > >> >deportation.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What if the person is innocent?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have
> > > > > >proof
> > > > > >of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times. This
> > > > > >is
> > > > > >a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Therefore, there can be no innocence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Citizens can be charged with illegal entry.
> > > >
> > > > Any one can be charged with any thing. Courts do not have a finding of
> > > > innocence, it is either guilty or not guilty.
> > >
> > > They have a presumption of innocence, unless guilt can be proved.
> > > Innocent is, therefore, the status quo.
> >
> >
> > A presumption of innocence is not a finding of innocence.
>
> Yes it is, until a finding of guilty is arrived at.

The "wise" ramblings of a liberal mind.