Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: Jack Hollis on 15 May 2010 13:33 On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:51:05 -0700 (PDT), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 14, 7:45=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B." >> >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >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. >> >> Actually it's been explained a few times already. =A0Obviously you >> haven't been paying attention. > >I've been paying very close attention, and you have not explained it. If you could get a reliable supply of heroin for $25 a day rather than $500, it would be possible for addicts to get the money they neeed without stealing. One of the reasons that methadone was introduced was to allow addicts to stop comitting crimes (many violent) in order to support their habit. It also allowed addicts to get jobs and resume a somewhat normal life. The addict benefited and so did the community. In addition, if drugs were legally available in a store then street gangs wouldn't be killing each other for the right to seel drugs on the street. >> >And why are children of drug addicts better off having their parents >> >at home? Do you think junkies make good parents? >> >> If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being good >> parents. > >A junkie is a better parent if heroin is legal than if it's illegal? >You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics >better parents? Did it make them worse parents?
From: dene on 15 May 2010 19:48 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4beeaff2$0$4870$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:50:48 -0700, John B. wrote: > > On May 15, 5:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > >> What game is that: the game where you should actually have some > >> evidence to support what you claim? > >> > >> LOL > > > > You mean like the evidence you presented to support your claim that > > legalizing heroin would make junkies better parents? > > I admit I know next to nothing about narcotics. But I would not be > surprised if there wasn't some reasonably functional range between total > withdrawal and being completely blasted. Say the parent is in a program > where they get enough heroin to keep them thinking straight, but not > enough to get wasted. The US is too Puritanical a place to be so > rational about drug addiction, but it's conceivable at least. Isn't it? Good parenting requires sobriety. -Greg
From: Carbon on 15 May 2010 22:06 On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:48:45 -0700, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4beeaff2$0$4870$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:50:48 -0700, John B. wrote: >>> On May 15, 5:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>> >>>> What game is that: the game where you should actually have some >>>> evidence to support what you claim? >>>> >>>> LOL >>> >>> You mean like the evidence you presented to support your claim that >>> legalizing heroin would make junkies better parents? >> >> I admit I know next to nothing about narcotics. But I would not be >> surprised if there wasn't some reasonably functional range between >> total withdrawal and being completely blasted. Say the parent is in a >> program where they get enough heroin to keep them thinking straight, >> but not enough to get wasted. The US is too Puritanical a place to be >> so rational about drug addiction, but it's conceivable at least. >> Isn't it? > > Good parenting requires sobriety. If the requirement is stone cold sobriety at all times then the vast majority of Americans are bad parents.
From: dene on 16 May 2010 04:34 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4bef532d$0$4954$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:48:45 -0700, dene wrote: > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4beeaff2$0$4870$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:50:48 -0700, John B. wrote: > >>> On May 15, 5:56 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> What game is that: the game where you should actually have some > >>>> evidence to support what you claim? > >>>> > >>>> LOL > >>> > >>> You mean like the evidence you presented to support your claim that > >>> legalizing heroin would make junkies better parents? > >> > >> I admit I know next to nothing about narcotics. But I would not be > >> surprised if there wasn't some reasonably functional range between > >> total withdrawal and being completely blasted. Say the parent is in a > >> program where they get enough heroin to keep them thinking straight, > >> but not enough to get wasted. The US is too Puritanical a place to be > >> so rational about drug addiction, but it's conceivable at least. > >> Isn't it? > > > > Good parenting requires sobriety. > > If the requirement is stone cold sobriety at all times then the vast > majority of Americans are bad parents. I didn't say "stone cold." I had excellent parents who drank to excess on occasion. That's a far cry from a heroin or meth addict. -Greg
From: alan on 16 May 2010 05:01
On May 15, 6:49 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 15, 5:36 am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > <f4dde301-6779-4317-ae04-21581e56e...(a)o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 14, 7:45 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >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.. > > > > > Actually it's been explained a few times already. Obviously you > > > > haven't been paying attention. > > > > I've been paying very close attention, and you have not explained it. > > > > > >And why are children of drug addicts better off having their parents > > > > >at home? Do you think junkies make good parents? > > > > > If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being good > > > > parents. > > > > A junkie is a better parent if heroin is legal than if it's illegal? > > > Yup. > > > > You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics > > > better parents? > > > Would banning nicotine make nicotine addicts better or worse parents? > > It is truly idiotic to think that the legality of an addictive > substance has some bearing on its effects, or to compare cigarettes to > heroin. Afraid to answer my question? Nicotine addiction is one of the most powerful out there, so if it were prohibited a very lucrative and expensive black market would form to serve nicotine addicts. They would be forced to pay far more for their fix than they pay now and that would impact their ability to discharge the other responsiblities in their lives; including parenting. Heroin addicts today are in pretty much that precise fix (if you'll pardon the pun): they have to pay exorbitant prices to feed their addiction and it impacts their ability to discharge the duties of a normal life. A heroin addict who is receiving treatment with methadone is able to function, so why would they not be able to function if they were being treated by smaller doses of heroin instead? |