From: John B. on
On May 7, 11:25 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-07 12:45:24 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>
>
>
> > "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote in message
> >news:2010050711524348319-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
> >> On 2010-05-07 08:54:54 -0400, MNMikeW said:
>
> >>> "Carbon" <nob...(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_busin...(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?
>
> It happens every day.  Maybe not everywhere.  But somewhere, it happens
> every day.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.  But the fact
> remains, when you put a badge on someone's shirt and a gun on their
> belt, some people get an inflated sense of power and they just want to
> use it.
>
> 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.  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!!!
>
> Obviously, this is not the same as racist behavior.  But it serves to
> demonstrate the same principle -- that certain people, when given a
> little bit of power, will abuse it.  And if they happen to be racist
> cops (which ain't all that uncommon), it can lead to some rather
> explosive circumstances.
>
> 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).
>
> Randy

That used to happen to me a lot when I was in high school. I had
couple of friends who were black and cops were always harassing them.
That never happened when I was with white friends.
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<a4ad277c-3776-4644-b4f7-0a694a09396c(a)d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 8:50�pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:30:25 -0500, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> > >So open the flood gate of legal drugs �TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN DO
> > >HARM TO OTHERS.
> >
> > It's an assumption that legalization would increase drug use. �Fact is
> > that drugs are easily �available to anyone who wants them. �Right now,
> > it's easier for a High School kid to get illegal drugs than alcohol.
> > So the idea that legalization would increase drug use is by no means a
> > proven hypothesis. And even if it did, most people who try drugs, or
> > alcohol, never develop a problem. �
>
> They are not easy to get for anyone who wants them. If I wanted to buy
> cocaine or heroin, I would have no idea how to do it.

And you could find out in about 15 minutes.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<98b86b30-e699-4bd9-8c48-fb8a007fbc38(a)e1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 10:34�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <36e9u55fi552pto25hgoodsr5n05g1g...(a)4ax.com>,
> >
> > �bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:50:47 -0400, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:30:25 -0500, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> >
> > > >>So open the flood gate of legal drugs �TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN DO
> > > >>HARM TO OTHERS.
> >
> > > >It's an assumption that legalization would increase drug use. �
> >
> > > Legalized drugs will be far less expensive which validates that
> > > assumption.
> >
> > Sorry, but no.
> >
> > > >Fact is that drugs are easily �available to anyone who wants them.
> > > >�Right
> > > >now,
> > > >it's easier for a High School kid to get illegal drugs than alcohol.
> >
> > > Ridiculous Jack. �All a kid needs for alcohol is a fake ID, or one
> > > person of age to buy it...at hundreds of stores anywhere in his
> > > hometown. �To get drugs is far more difficult and expensive.
> >
> > Far easier to get drugs. Those who sell them don't care about ID: fake
> > or otherwise.
>
>
> Is it now? Why don't you go out right now and buy a gram of coke if
> it's so easy. Let us know how you do.

I could.

It would take me maybe 5 or 10 minutes down at the local pub.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on
On Fri, 07 May 2010 22:13:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article
> <a4ad277c-3776-4644-b4f7-0a694a09396c(a)d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 8:50 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:30:25 -0500, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> So open the flood gate of legal drugs  TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN
>>>> DO HARM TO OTHERS.
>>>
>>> It's an assumption that legalization would increase drug use.  Fact
>>> is that drugs are easily  available to anyone who wants them.  Right
>>> now, it's easier for a High School kid to get illegal drugs than
>>> alcohol. So the idea that legalization would increase drug use is by
>>> no means a proven hypothesis. And even if it did, most people who
>>> try drugs, or alcohol, never develop a problem.
>>
>> They are not easy to get for anyone who wants them. If I wanted to
>> buy cocaine or heroin, I would have no idea how to do it.
>
> And you could find out in about 15 minutes.

I don't doubt that at all. I lived in Burnaby for a couple of years and
took the East Hastings bus downtown to work five days a week. A Pacific
facing seaport so lots of hard drugs, and a warm climate to attract the
indigent. It was... eye opening.
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<e7c18318-b236-4a36-ad5d-883bc88a207f(a)e35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 7:43�pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 May 2010 19:59:03 -0700, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >People should be personally responsible for the things you mentioned.
> > >However, none of the things you describe, in of themselves, are as
> > >addictive
> > >or destructive as cocaine, heroin, or meth. �Hence the laws and
> > >consequences.
> >
> > >-Greg
> >
> > I'm not arguing that drugs are good. I'm saying that making drugs
> > illegal not only doesn't solve any of the problems caused by drug use,
> > it actually makes things much worse.
> >
> > As far as I can see, drug laws accomplish absolutely nothing and do �a
> > huge amount of harm.
>
> So you think drug abuse and addiction and the many negative effects
> they have on our society would be diminished if drugs were legal?

Yes.

We'd treat drug addiction as a health problem. Addicts wouldn't need to
steal to feed their habits, because drugs would be (relatively) in
expensive.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>