From: Jack Hollis on
On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:09:56 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> As far as I can see, drug laws accomplish absolutely nothing and do =A0a
>> 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?

I see drug abuse as a medical problem that should be treated by
medical professionals or other organizations like the AA model for
alcoholics.

If the US took a third of the money it wastes on drug law enforcement
and incarceration, and moved it to treatment, the drug abusers would
be so much better off.

And, of course, the rest of society would benefit as well.

They could eliminate prison overcrowding by letting drug offenders go.

People wouldn't have to fear for their lives from drug addicts mugging
them, or burglarizing their homes, to pay for drugs.

Drug gangs wouldn't be killing each other for control of the streets
to sell drugs.

Organized drug cartels would be out of business.

You could disband the DEA and all other drug police on the state and
local level.

The government could generat tax revenue from the sale of drugs.

Users could be sure of the quality of their drugs and not be forced to
share needles.

Tens of millioins of otherwise law abiding citizens would no longer
have to engage in criminal activities.

The Police could focus on more serious crimes and violent criminals
could spend more time in jail.

Making drug illegal is complete madness.



From: Jack Hollis on
On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:23:18 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 7, 8:50=A0pm, 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 =A0TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN DO
>> >HARM TO OTHERS.
>>
>> It's an assumption that legalization would increase drug use. =A0Fact is
>> that drugs are easily =A0available to anyone who wants them. =A0Right 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. =A0
>
>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.

What can I say John, you're just not cool.
From: bknight on
On Sun, 9 May 2010 11:44:38 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>In article <i0ldu55lvqipn4tse7hm60qgletolbdv2s(a)4ax.com>,
>bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>> Why am I not surprised that Bert the Shallow has completely changed
>> the subject, Because he was found to be an idiot again?
>>
>> The subject was Mexican nationals being able to own property in the
>> U.S., not the reverse, but wriggling out of admitting you're wrong is
>> par for the course.
>
>No, the subject was why the difference in immigration laws between
>Mexico and the USA why not reciprocity.


Its so revealing, and helpful, to understand the idiocy that rattles
around in your pea brain.

Here's the original question that you asked of John B.

.....In article <e9313f6a-885e-44f8-b4cb-5362aeb48277
.....@b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...


.....Please provide proof that US nationals can be majority owners of
.....real property in Mexico.

You asked for proof, suggesting there is none, it and when it is given
become your slimy self.

Keep digging this hole.

BK
From: Jack Hollis on
On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:08:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> Our legal system makes it a criminal offense to be in the US illegally.
>
>Except if you come from Cuba. The moment a Cuban refugee sets foot on
>US soil, he's legal.

Other national groups who suffer political opression like the Cubans
are also allowed to stay.
From: BAR on
In article <30ndu5lm69pv7oi22otqjouj3mq8cvqq53(a)4ax.com>,
bknight(a)conramp.net says...
>
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 11:44:38 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <i0ldu55lvqipn4tse7hm60qgletolbdv2s(a)4ax.com>,
> >bknight(a)conramp.net says...
> >> Why am I not surprised that Bert the Shallow has completely changed
> >> the subject, Because he was found to be an idiot again?
> >>
> >> The subject was Mexican nationals being able to own property in the
> >> U.S., not the reverse, but wriggling out of admitting you're wrong is
> >> par for the course.
> >
> >No, the subject was why the difference in immigration laws between
> >Mexico and the USA why not reciprocity.
>
>
> Its so revealing, and helpful, to understand the idiocy that rattles
> around in your pea brain.
>
> Here's the original question that you asked of John B.
>
> ....In article <e9313f6a-885e-44f8-b4cb-5362aeb48277
> ....@b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
>
>
> ....Please provide proof that US nationals can be majority owners of
> ....real property in Mexico.
>
> You asked for proof, suggesting there is none, it and when it is given
> become your slimy self.
>
> Keep digging this hole.

That was not the original question Bobby.