From: bknight on
On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:20:14 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
wrote:

>In article
><cb25a459-37df-49db-b24a-4af088e967f5(a)l18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Good parenting requires sobriety.
>> >
>> > -Greg
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
>It requires presence more than it requires absolute sobriety.

He didn't say absolute Alan.

BK
From: John B. on
On May 16, 3:19 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <18666b86-000c-4610-953c-6707d9b43...(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>  "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> 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.
>
> So then from that incident you would argue that alcohol should be banned?
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

That's a stupid question, but the answer is no.
From: John B. on
On May 16, 3:21 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <df9ab495-4095-4191-b55b-059a97714...(a)v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>  "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 10:31 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT), alan <alangba...(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.
>
> > I have known and been around heroin addicts. They do NOT lead normal
> > lives.
>
> No. Because the cost of getting heroin is so high they cannot lead
> normal lives.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

It is clear that you know absolutely nothing about drug addiction.
Addicts don't behave the way they do simply because illegal drugs are
expensive. It's the addiction itself that keeps them from being
responsible, productive members of society. I've seen this myself. You
obviously haven't. As I said before, anybody who thinks a junkie is
going to become a good parent if only we would legalize heroin is
utterly ignorant of the effects of drug addiction.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:21:18 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
wrote:

>> I have known and been around heroin addicts. They do NOT lead normal
>> lives.
>
>No. Because the cost of getting heroin is so high they cannot lead
>normal lives.

There are famous poets and politicians who were addicts in the 19th
century when it was legal in the UK.

--
"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: R&B on
On 2010-05-13 18:26:17 -0400, MNMikeW said:

> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
> news:2010051318202741171-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>> On 2010-05-11 12:25:04 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>>
>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010051023553696677-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>>> On 2010-05-10 13:25:58 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>>>>
>>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2010050723254273798-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>>>>> On 2010-05-07 12:45:24 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2010050711524348319-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>>>>>>> On 2010-05-07 08:54:54 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4be34111$0$4888$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 12:49:06 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:2010050612314318056-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But as to the Arizona law specifically...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But where the Arizona law really runs into problems is where police
>>>>>>>>>>>> in that state won't stop me because I "look" illegal, but they could
>>>>>>>>>>>> stop Maria or Miguel, my neighbors, who are both second-generation US
>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens, both born in this country to immigrant citizens of the US.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's where this law runs into serious constitutional questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's why I oppose it. It places legal citizens in situations
>>>>>>>>>>>> we've only read about in history books and seen in movies about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gestapo in Germany. It's unAmerican.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is wrong Randy. The law specifically states there must be lawful
>>>>>>>>>>> contact BEFORE any paper checking can happen. They cannot simply pull
>>>>>>>>>>> you over for looking a specific way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, because the police would never routinely pull visible minorities
>>>>>>>>>> over like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like they do now right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, like they do right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Randy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Riiiiiiight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you serious, Mike? Do you honestly believe that police don't stop
>>>>>> people strictly because of the color of their skin?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does it happen, sure. Does it happen a lot, no. There are bad apples in
>>>>> every group.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally know a half-dozen people -- responsible adults, all of
>>>>>> whom are model citizens -- who have been pulled over by racist cops who
>>>>>> just wanted to hassle a black person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they say anything racist? Or you just assuming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yes, I was even once in the car with someone when it happened. I've
>>>>>> seen it first hand. We weren't speeding. We weren't breaking any
>>>>>> laws. And the cop was verbally rude and abusive. It was clear that he
>>>>>> just wanted to intimidate my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've ran into a few prick cops as most people have. There must have
>>>>> been a reason for
>>>>> the stop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is, 99 percent of cops are good people. It's that 1 percent
>>>>>> that give the rest a bad name in the minds of some.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is true for any group. Except for politicans, where it's
>>>>> reversed. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a lesser scale, even without a badge and a gun, you put some people
>>>>>> in a position of presumed authority, they will let their presumed
>>>>>> "power" go to their heads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes there a few of those out there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like when I was broadcasting a PGA TOUR
>>>>>> event once and one of the volunteers threatened to have me removed from
>>>>>> the grounds because I was walking inside the ropes, even though I had
>>>>>> the credentials clearly on my arm entitling me to be there. The same
>>>>>> guy even started physically assaulting one of our female reporters
>>>>>> WHILE SHE WAS TALKING ON THE AIR!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I did volunteer work at the 3M Championship up here a few years ago. We
>>>>> didnt have that much power to do that. ;-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For you to mindlessly assert that such things don't happen only shows
>>>>>> your own ignorance -- or stubborn insistence on keeping your head stuck
>>>>>> firmly in the sand (or elsewhere just as dark).
>>>>>>
>>>>> I never said they never happen. But for you to mindlessly assert that
>>>>> this will be the norm only shows your ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> I never said it was the norm.
>>>>
>>>> You said, "Riiiiiiight," as if to suggest it hardly ever happens.
>>>>
>>>> It happens with surprising regularity. Somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> To assert otherwise is a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Randy
>>>>
>>> But the way this law is being painted by the left you'd think this law
>>> does exactly that. Allows for the police to profile at will. This is
>>> not the case at all. In fact it was modified to make sure it was more
>>> than clear.
>>
>>
>> Describe for me what some who is "illegally here" looks like.
>>
>> Randy
>>
> What?


Can you not read?

Describe for me what someone who is "illegally here" looks like.

Randy