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 9 May 2010 14:12 On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:30:05 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >"synthetic opiod" is not equivalent to "synthetic heroin". Sure it is.
From: Jack Hollis on 9 May 2010 14:15 On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:02:28 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:34:49 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:13:39 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >>>>On Fri, 07 May 2010 12:01:06 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>It's insane to give such freedom when you are assured that it will, in >>>>>fact, cause harm to others. Your opinion would be different if a >>>>>loved one was killed by someone driving a car while high on cocaine. >>>>>If not, you're certainly in the minority. >>>>> >>>>>BK >>>> >>>>Just because cocaine is legal doesn't mean that driving under the >>>>influence of cocaine would be legal. Alcohol is legal. >>> >>>You aren't thinking very straight. Driving under the influence of >>>either is illegal now. Why would that change? >>> >>>BK >> >>You were inferring that my opinion on legalization would be different >>if a loved one were killed by someone under the influence of cocaine. >>But to me it's irrelevant because driving under the influence of all >>drugs would still be illegal. Tens of thousands of people are killed >>every year in the US by people driving under the influence of alcohol >>and I don't think that alcohol should be illegal. Why should any >>other drugs be different? > >What part of " driving under the influence of >either is illegal now. Why would that change?" did you not >understand? > >BK I understand that you're confused. You said, "Your opinion would be different if a loved one was killed by someone driving a car while high on cocaine." And I'm saying that it would not alter my opinion a bit.
From: Jack Hollis on 9 May 2010 14:18 On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:05:16 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>Once drugs were legal, those dangerous organizations would be out of >>the drug business. > >Why? Their overhead would be lower, as would their profit, but the >client base would grow. Just because it would be legal wouldn't stop >them from doing business. They already have the connections. > >BK I suppose that they would do about as well as bootleggers did after they repealed prohibition. If the price was kept at a reasonable level the drug dealers would be out of business.
From: Alan Baker on 9 May 2010 14:44 In article <enudu555hcneaq4s25ihnmciigtuiu6uhh(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:30:05 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >"synthetic opiod" is not equivalent to "synthetic heroin". > > Sure it is. No, Jack, it's not. They are both members of the class "opiod", but being members of the same class doesn't make them the same thing. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on 9 May 2010 15:22
On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:07:37 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>I can honestly say that my life has been more enjoyable because of >>alcohol and drugs. > >I prefer to be sober. These days, so do I. |