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: John B. on 16 May 2010 10:22 On May 16, 5:02 am, alan <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > On May 15, 10:33 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:51:05 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > <johnb...(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. > > Nor would they be handing out free samples to try and get new > customers hooked. > > > > > >> >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? > > Good point. It is not a good point at all. Making narcotics widely available, cheap and easy to buy would expand the ranks of drug addicts. Anyone who thinks a drug addict can be a responsible, productive member of society and a good spouse and parent is incredibly ignorant.
From: Jack Hollis on 16 May 2010 10:31 On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT), alan <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >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? They use methadone because it gets around the laws against heroin. Methadone has some advantages because you only need one oral dose a day rather that 4 or 5 if you shoot smack. Most addicts will tell you that they prefer smack to methadone. Again, most of the negative aspects of heroin are because it's illegal. A heroin addict with a reliable affordable supply of drugs can lead a fairly normal life.
From: Carbon on 16 May 2010 10:42 On Sun, 16 May 2010 07:14:25 -0700, John B. wrote: > On May 15, 10:06 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:48:45 -0700, dene wrote: >>> "Carbon" <nob...(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. > > That is not a requirement. But addiction to drugs or alcohol causes a > person to be consumed with his/her need to be under the influence all > the time. Addicts and alcoholics are irresponsible and self-absorbed. > They spend money that their families need to live on. They have > trouble holding jobs. A close friend of mine, now dead, was a terrible > alcoholic. His wife estimated that he spent $12,000/year on liquor. > I've seen families wrecked by alcoholism and drug addiction. And now > Jack and Alan would have you believe that legalizing drugs would > reduce these problems. It very well might in many cases, although likely not for addicts like your friend. Imagine a heroin addict who gets a steady supply doled out at some clinic. Enough that they are not committing crimes to get their fix, not enough to get blasted. A friend of mine's mother had inoperable cancer. Her doctors her on morphine for the pain. She was addicted, but she was terminal and the issue was pain management. She was pretty lucid until near the end.
From: Howard Brazee on 16 May 2010 12:41 On Sun, 16 May 2010 05:38:02 -0500, Horvath(a)net.net wrote: >>> >If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being good >>> >parents. >>> >>> That really works for alcoholics. >> >>Did it work better for them during Prohibition... ...or worse? > >That was my point. Without an answer to that question, the point is missed. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Don Kirkman on 16 May 2010 13:15
On 16 May 2010 14:42:31 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >On Sun, 16 May 2010 07:14:25 -0700, John B. wrote: >> On May 15, 10:06 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:48:45 -0700, dene wrote: >>>> Good parenting requires sobriety. >>> If the requirement is stone cold sobriety at all times then the vast >>> majority of Americans are bad parents. >> >> That is not a requirement. But addiction to drugs or alcohol causes a >> person to be consumed with his/her need to be under the influence all >> the time. Addicts and alcoholics are irresponsible and self-absorbed. >It very well might in many cases, although likely not for addicts like >your friend. Imagine a heroin addict who gets a steady supply doled out >at some clinic. Enough that they are not committing crimes to get their >fix, not enough to get blasted. > The old sources I mentioned earlier held that many addicts kept their secrets because there was no change in their responsible outward behavior while using because their drug (usually morphine) was readily available. This of course does not agree with the belief that because of increasing tolerance most addicts need increasingly larger doses--thus the accidental overdoses. >A friend of mine's mother had inoperable cancer. Her doctors her on >morphine for the pain. She was addicted, but she was terminal and the >issue was pain management. She was pretty lucid until near the end. There is considerable evidence that most patients using opiates for pain control do not become addicted in the clinical sense. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net |