author: Joe

text:
Scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's
climate
by Joseph Bast (January 30, 2001)

Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=176

Summary: Much of what is reported about global warming in newspapers and on
television is wrong. Unfortunately, few reporters have the training or
background needed to distinguish real science and economic facts from
political and ideological "spin." Over the next few days we will present
seven facts you should know about global warming.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM]Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition
saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or
will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's
atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." [The names of persons who
have signed the petition can be viewed at http://www.oism.org/pproject.]

The petition is being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, an independent research organization that receives no funding from
industry.

Among the signers of the petition are over 2,100 physicists, geophysicists,
climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are
especially well-qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the
Earth's atmosphere. Another 4,400 signers are scientists qualified to
comment on carbon dioxide's effects on plant and animal life. Nearly all of
the signers have some sort of advanced technical training.

The qualifications of the signers of the Oregon Institute Petition are
dramatically better than the qualifications of the 2,600 "scientists" who
have signed a competing petition, circulated by Ozone Action, calling for
immediate action to counter global warming. An investigation by Citizens for
a Sound Economy found that more than 90 percent of the Ozone Action
petition's signers lacked credentials to speak with authority on the issue.
[Citizens for a Sound Economy, "Analyses Finds Only 10% of Ozone Action 2600
are 'Experts' on Global Warming," news release, October 29, 1997.] The
entire list included just one climatologist.

Over one hundred climate scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration,
which stated in part, "there does not exist today a general scientific
consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of
carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that
actual observations from Earth satellites show no climate warming
whatsoever." [Dr. S. Fred Singer, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's
Unfinished Debate (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 1997), pages
40-43.]

A survey of 36 state climatologists--scientists retained by state
governments to monitor and research climate issues--conducted in September
and October 1997 found that 58 percent disagreed with the statement, "global
warming is for real," while only 36 percent agreed.[ American Viewpoint,
"Survey of State & Regional Climatologists, September-October 1997,
Annotated Questionnaire," October 1997] A remarkable 89 percent agreed that
"current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global
temperatures caused only by man-made factors."

The same survey found that none of the climatologists strongly agreed, and
only 11 percent "somewhat agreed," with the following statement: "Reducing
anthropogenic or man-made carbon dioxide emissions among developed nations
such as the United States to 1990 levels will prevent global temperatures
from rising." Eighty-six percent disagreed with the statement.

Global warming alarmists have sought to silence their critics by calling
them a small group of industry-funded dissenters from the "scientific
consensus." [Ross Gelbspan, The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle Over
Earth's Threatened Climate (New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
1997).] The Oregon Institute Petition, the Leipzig Declaration, and the
survey of practicing climatologists prove these claims are false. We should
keep in mind, however, that scientific truths are not found by polling
scientists, but through rigorous debate recorded in peer-reviewed journals.
As the following points show, global warming skeptics can win that debate,
too.


author: Scott Kuli

subject: Re: Scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate

text:
I don't give a fuck what they believe. I'm tired of smelling
pollution more than fresh air on summer days, and I want it to fucking
stop. If it won't, then I want the people who won't let it to be
stopped. Got it?

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:02:45 GMT, "Joe" <[email]> wrote:


author: Lloyd Parker

text:
In article <9w6da.487060$[email]>,
   "Joe" <[email]> wrote:

You are LYING!

Try a scientific source, idiot.

Lie #1

Yeah, like you'd know what a fact is.

Lie #2

Lie #3

Lie #4

Lie #5

Lie #6

Lie #7

Lie #8

And 6 years ago, that was true.  It's 2003 now, in case you haven't noticed.

Go to scientific journals and see what the consensus in science is.

You really are an idiot.


author: Titan Point

text:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:04:58 -0500, Scott Kuli wrote:

How can you smell carbon dioxide?


author: James

text:
"Scott Kuli" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Maybe you could move down the street.

Earth's
on
or
Earth's
who
from
geophysicists,
the
of
for
issue.
2600
of
Warming's
September
"global
that
and
"Reducing
nations
Company,
should
journals.
debate,


author: maz

subject: Going to Amsterdam soon

text:
Hi Fam,

Just wanted to share a prompting to attend a free seminar on Saturday.
Its been years since I attended seminars,  working with Byron Katie
when she introduced her work (the 2nd Coming Alive for everyone)
over here and in Germany, as a translator.

This Saturday, as everyday, I command into God's Hands. I am just curious.
I have talked to the people and, along with Guidance' direction,
am planning to be there. It feels right and it feels timely.
Do you mind reporting here next week?

My last experience with seminars and coaches and this stuff
was a devastation, and I hear its time to revisit a similar scenario
with an open and forgiving, yet curious mind, for healing.
Well, Holy Spirit, I say "bring it on, please!". I am willing
to learn from You in whatever setting You use for waking us.
All ways.

oneLove, maz


author: Stephen Calder

subject: Re: Going to Amsterdam soon

text:
maz wrote:

Byron Katie's work is very valuable, from what little I've seen of it.

A great way to challenge existing beliefs and turn them around if they
are no longer useful.

May you be richly blessed and may your presence bless the gathering.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Going to Amsterdam soon

text:
~~I 'hear' you will BLESS and BE
BLESSED!  And so it is dear maz ;-)
What is there to fear? Love is on
your side and when you remember
Who walks beside you, along the way,
fear is impossible!!!
;-)
Have a wonder - filled time.
Love and hugs
Kay
= = = = =

Group: talk.religion.course-miracle Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2007, 7:31pm
(EDT+6) From: [email] (maz)


subject: Re: Going to Amsterdam soon

text:
<[email]> schreef

Thanks dear Kay. It's not so much a fear factor,
but a correction factor that leads me to attend.
Lessons keep repeating themselves, you know ;-)
Actually, how does a student compromise with
the world we see and to what extend.
See, the curriculum is clear in that we should
not want to keep one tiny illusion and make it real
(f-alse e-vidence a-ppearing r-eal), unless
we want to loose sight of all Truth entirely.
Its radical. Its a challenge, and not a small one.
The selfmade ego, being fearful and thriving
on fear, comes up with a myriad of "witnesses"
that the task at hand is impossible. Vigilance
for only God's Kingdom seems merely a potential
and its fulfilment a future achievement, if ever.

If our brother is our savior, and the Friendship
with God requires to let go of secracy, secret
thoughts and wishes, the false sense of vulnerability
and the entirely corrupted sense of special self,
if we are to trust our brothers as we are to trust
God, the result will be what I'd call a transparent
life. Side effects in the world we saw can be that you can be taken
advantage of, you are exposed to all kinds of
responses that aren't always beneficient; jealousy,
theft, manipulation, rivalry, ridicule etc. I used to think
its better to withdraw from worldy affairs
as much as possible to not get torn apart.
The Holy Spirit just pointed into an entirely
opposite direction, giving me tasks that require
to be in the open more and more rather than secluded.
Because in relationships lies the cradle of the miracle.

On the other hand, thinking of Carey's film 'Truman',
being a character in a real life soap sort of show,
finding out you can't hide a single detail of your life,
your being watched, and even incapable of any
sort of privacy... that used to be a fear in the beginning
years with the lessons. With time the recognition
kicks in that there's nothing valuable to be given up,
and the exchange offered is dropping nothing to gain
everything. Its not a bargain though, yet one cannot
have both at the same time, darn. And yet, the ego does
a hell of a job to mask nothing to appear as
everything ;-) Well, meanwhile its good to just notice,
move on and return to Peace, its not such a big deal after all.
Its only the salvation of the world :-))

Thanks {{{KAy}}}


subject: Re: Going to Amsterdam soon

text:
~Much that you share, I am going through
(again) with the church. So I HEAR you
dear Maz and know about swaying back
and forth with ego having yet another
swing at us. This time around for me
Holy Spirit is using humor more and more.
Why value the valueless? Do I care that
I'm standing in front of a group, making a
total fool of myself?  Actually - I'm beginning
to look fwd to it!!!  HaHAHa  ;-)))))))
As you said brother: Bring it on.
Thanks for the hugs - I'll take em by the
dozen - Kay
= = = = = = =
Group: talk.religion.course-miracle Date: Fri, Apr 13, 2007, 4:59pm
(EDT+6) From: [email] (maz)
<[email]> schreef
~~I 'hear' you will BLESS and BE
BLESSED! And so it is dear maz ;-)
What is there to fear? Love is on
your side and when you remember
Who walks beside you, along the way,
fear is impossible!!!
;-)
Have a wonder - filled time.
Thanks dear Kay. It's not so much a fear factor, but a correction factor
that leads me to attend. Lessons keep repeating themselves, you know ;-)
Actually, how does a student compromise with the world we see and to
what extend.
See, the curriculum is clear in that we should not want to keep one tiny
illusion and make it real (f-alse e-vidence a-ppearing r-eal), unless we
want to loose sight of all Truth entirely. Its radical. Its a challenge,
and not a small one. The selfmade ego, being fearful and thriving on
fear, comes up with a myriad of "witnesses" that the task at hand is
impossible. Vigilance for only God's Kingdom seems merely a potential
and its fulfilment a future achievement, if ever.
If our brother is our savior, and the Friendship with God requires to
let go of secracy, secret thoughts and wishes, the false sense of
vulnerability and the entirely corrupted sense of special self, if we
are to trust our brothers as we are to trust God, the result will be
what I'd call a transparent life. Side effects in the world we saw can
be that you can be taken advantage of, you are exposed to all kinds of
responses that aren't always beneficient; jealousy, theft, manipulation,
rivalry, ridicule etc. I used to think its better to withdraw from
worldy affairs as much as possible to not get torn apart. The Holy
Spirit just pointed into an entirely opposite direction, giving me tasks
that require to be in the open more and more rather than secluded.
Because in relationships lies the cradle of the miracle.
On the other hand, thinking of Carey's film 'Truman', being a character
in a real life soap sort of show, finding out you can't hide a single
detail of your life, your being watched, and even incapable of any sort
of privacy... that used to be a fear in the beginning years with the
lessons. With time the recognition kicks in that there's nothing
valuable to be given up, and the exchange offered is dropping nothing to
gain everything. Its not a bargain though, yet one cannot have both at
the same time, darn. And yet, the ego does a hell of a job to mask
nothing to appear as everything ;-) Well, meanwhile its good to just
notice, move on and return to Peace, its not such a big deal after all.
Its only the salvation of the world :-))
Love and hugs
Kay
= = = = =
Thanks {{{KAy}}}
Group: talk.religion.course-miracle Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2007, 7:31pm
(EDT+6) From: [email] (maz)


subject: Re: Going to Amsterdam soon

text:
<[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

:-))
http://www.curtisknightfoundation.net/3rd/ReadyForLove_accweb128_mix1_maz.mp3
I am ready.

oneLove


author: Lee

subject: Re: Going to Amsterdam soon ~ mazo supremo

text:
I'm blown away, maz.

I hope everyone here gets the opportunity to hear this.
This is a rendition that should be a viral HIT -- best
that I've heard, of this song.

~ Lee

maz <[email]> wrote:


text:
I began singing that song at my Mom's deathbed.
Over and over. I love the song. Its a great song.
And inspired by some love miracles in 2006
in our direct neighbourhood, it was time to sing it on tape.
Its a demo. I hope to meet with Talia again one day.
Her violin would maybe enhance it. However,
I am grateful to India and her Inspiration. A song
of Life in all its simplicity and beauty. thanks Lee for
listening with me. namaztï¿½

"Lee" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...


subject: India Arie fans - don't miss this [was Re: Going to Amsterdam soon ~ mazo supremo]

text:
Lee <[email]> wrote:

Such sweet longing..

http://www.curtisknightfoundation.net/3rd/ReadyForLove_accweb128_mix1_maz.mp3


subject:
Re: India Arie fans - don't miss this [was Re: Going to Amsterdam
 soon ~ mazo supremo]

text:
Lee wrote:

Just beautiful.

I'm working on an Indie Arie song I just heard a few days ago. It's
called There's Hope, from one of her recent albums. If you can find a
copy, have a listen. It's a gem:

"There's hope, it doesn't cost a thing to smile, you don't have to pay
to laugh, you better thank God for that".

The chord progression is something else.

In C it goes:

C/G - D7/F# - Fm(7) - C/E

That descending run in semitones starting on the third of the tonic (G
in the key of C; her band does it in Bb) and the accompanying harmony
just knock me out, as did your version of Ready For Love. Excellent.


author: Matthew Skala

subject: Another rough day at the computer club

text:
So now I've committed to getting a user to switch from a terminal
emulator to a PPP connection.  He's using DOS and has trouble with
self-extracting executables because they're too complicated.  Time
to get out of this retirement town.


author: Lee Kandee

subject: Re: Another rough day at the computer club

text:
I know just what you mean.  I have this
webtv machine that I have trouble turning
on and off.

                   Giggles


author: Scott Dorsey

text:
Matthew Skala <[email]> wrote:

Why?
What's wrong with shell service?
Works fine for me.

Sheesh.  Kids these days.
--scott


author: Scott Norwood

text:
In article <8tk93g$coq$[email]>,
Matthew Skala <[email]> wrote:

Do you happen to have some intense dislike for this poor individual?
Are you trying to seek revenge for some sort of horrible act?  At the
moment, I cannot think of any other possible reason for why someone
would want to inflict this sort of torture on anyone.

[I once managed to get SLIP to work under DOS, but it seemed pretty
 pointless to me, since it was only really useful for running 'telnet'
 and 'ftp', whose purposes were more appropriately served by terminal
 emulation.  The protocol overhead will be even worse with PPP than
 with SLIP.]


text:
In article <8tkveb$1mc$[email]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email]> wrote:

It is *not* shell service that he is upgrading from; it is a QWK-format
BBS connection mediated by Robocomm, essentially the same concept as a
FIDOnet "point".  The technology is completely different from that of a
FIDOnet "point", but serves the same function and at a comparable level of
complexity.  (So yes, my initial posting was an understatement: this user
is already managing a *really complicated* system of several interlocking
client applications, but he can't handle a self-extracting executable.)
Existing users are happy with QWK, and for good reasons, but new users
won't touch it.  Even though we provide other interfaces, as long as the
QWK interface exists, the existing users will do their damnedest to
discourage new users from using anything else.  Since the new users don't
use QWK either, they end up not using the system at all, and the entire
club is going down the tubes.  Not entirely because of lack of use of the
communications service, but not entirely not.  Also, the QWK system
interfaces to the NNTP server only by means of several hundred lines of
Perl that I wrote and didn't document.  There'd be no point documenting it
because we have absolutely no chance of finding anyone qualified to read
the documentation anyway.  Once upon a time we were a hobbyist club, but
now all the technically oriented hobbyists pass us by in favour of the
Linux club down the road.  By the way, did you know that the QWK system
stores indices to database records in the non-IEEE floating fucking point
format that was native to a now-long-dead version of Microsoft Compiled
BASIC?  The QWK/NNTP conversion script once malfunctioned in such a way as
to produce what one complainant described as "a classic gateway spew",
saturating a 33.6 modem for about 24 hours with duplicate articles.  If
Usenet were still run the way it ought to be run, I'd have been lined up
against the wall and shot for letting that happen.  Anyway, I will finish
my Masters' degree early next year.  If I go for a PhD it necessarily
won't be here; if I get a job it quite likely won't be here.  So if the
club is still depending on the QWK system beyond that time, I won't be
here to run it for them, there is no qualified replacement, and they're
going to have a problem.  I warned them and so it won't be *my* problem,
but I still have some feelings for this club because of the support they
gave me when I was a newbie and it *was* a hobbyist club, and I would
prefer that they didn't self-destruct.

So PPP will soon be Required, because it's a service the club has some
chance of actually supporting with the level of technical volunteers
we've been able to recruit.

I'm sorry, that wasn't bizarre at all.  I ought to be posting about it in
alt.sysadmin.recovery, and actually, I ought not to be posting about it at
all.  But you did ask.  And I guess there is a little bit of bizarrity in
the fact that I have clear memories of before QWK was invented.  I was one
of the last ones to upgrade to QWK when it started becoming popular.  Now
I've seen it and the associated culture of "echo networks" (just like
Usenet only different) live out a complete life, die, and I'm the one
trying to convince them to finally dig a hole and bury the festering
corpse already.  I'm a scarred old-timer at the age of 24.  That's not
really old, is it?

My first post to talk.bizarre was a 40K document I wrote all about how
upset I was at a particular administrative decision in a QWK network I was
using at the time.  It was not bizarre, and it was terribly pretentious,
and I was duly flamed for it.


author: Hardrock Llewynyth

text:
Thus did  [email] (Scott Norwood)  the Unworthy write
in this Year of Our Lord Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:10:17 GMT:

The first connection i used that wasn't a terminal emulation program
(either RIPTerm or Terminate depending on my mood and how much MUDding
i was planning doing that day) was a CSLIP connection package for DOS.

With a graphical interface.

Minuet, by the University of Michigan iirc,  It included telnet, FTP,
and gopher clients, and a graphical web browser.  To my knowledge, the
only graphical web browser that ever existed for DOS.  Like lynx with
pictures where all those [image] tags usually are.

I am looking for a copy of it.  Don't ask me why.

Hardrock


author: James A. Donald

subject: Re: Non-Contradictions of Libertarianism

text:
James A. Donald:

[Vulgar marxist economics being marxist economics expressed in simple
forms suitable for mass distribution, the kind of Marxist economics
that one usually encounters on usenet.]

Daniel Hugh Nexon <[email]> wrote:

No:  Marx obviously arrived at Marx's argument, but Marx presumably
was not a vulgar Marxist.

My point is that since vulgar Marxism leads Marx's erroneous
conclusions, conclusions that are very core of Marxist economics,
supposedly sophisticated Marxist economics must contain, must be based
on, the same fallacies as vulgar Marxism.

Thus non vulgar Marxist economics is no more true than vulgar Marxist
economics, has no better empirical support than vulgar Marxist
economics, it merely contains more fog.

I fail to see the relevance of your point.

I think perhaps you argue that because many famous Marxists seem to
have been aware that vulgar Marxist economics was fallacious,
therefore sound Marxist economics exists.

Does not follow.

That Lenin did not believe does not mean that his marxist economics
was sound, that a sound Marxist economics exists, but rather that he
contemptuously kicked marxist economics upstairs to become mere
theology, that he basically blew off economics.

Lenin did not believe in a correct and sound Marxist economics.
Rather he gave up on Marxist economics, except as mere theology and
recruiting propaganda.  Perhaps he believed in it as almost meaning
free rhetoric, but he did not believe in it as actual economics.

Lenin was not a sophisticated, non vulgar, marxist economist.  He was
a Marxist non economist.  That stuff about imperialism was not
sophiticated marxist economics, it was just the usual vulgar marxist
economics.  If Lenin actually believed it, which I doubt, then he was
also a vulgar Marxist economist.

Marx, and Marxists, care nothing about Popper.

My point is that Marxism must be falsifiable to be revolutionary, not
that it must be falsifiable to be scientific.

If Marxist economics withdraws its predictions, then it is subject to
the same criticisms as Lenin made of Eduard Bernstein.  It ceases to
be a revolutionary doctrine.

If the declining rate of return on capital with increased capital
leads not to crisis, but to greater social mobility, increased
opportunity, higher living standards for the workers, smoother
functioning of capitalism, etc, then the laws of economics suggest
that capitalism will have increasing popularity, not revolutionary
crisis, that capitalism will be more popular in places with the most
capital, as in fact we observe.  As Lenin correctly predicted, people
who believe this will not become revolutionaries.

If Marxist economics is false, then the reason that communists have
been most successful in backward economies is largely economic.
Capitalism will be less popular where there is less capital, and more
popular where there is more capital, as in fact we observe.

If Marxist economics is false, then the conclusion is not that
economic determinism fails to work, but worse, far worse, that to some
extent economic determinism *does* work, but in the direction opposite
to that predicted by Marx.

Sound economics does not only mean that Marxist economics is
fallacious, but worse, far worse still, that Marxism belongs to the
past, not the future.  The reason that Marxism had its greatest
successes in capital poor regions is not a peculiar accident, but a
consequence of the fact that communism is basically medieval,
belonging to the past, superficially dressed up in twentieth century
robes, that Marx is merely John Cade disguised in the sounds and
symbols of the twentieth century, that today's communism is the same
doctrine that was amusingly archaic and obsolete when Shakespeare
ridiculed it.

But predictions that are actually false *are* entirely relevant to
explanatory power, and if Marxism fails to make predictions, fails to
predict the success and victory of socialism, then it ceases to be
revolutionary.

Take the predictions out of Marxism, and you take the revolution out
of Marxism.  Messianic Christianity is not Messianic without the
second coming, and Marxism is not revolutionary if it fails to predict
the crisis of capitalism.


author: Daniel Hugh Nexon

text:
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, James A. Donald wrote:

The relevant point is propagated by whom? Maybe by libertarians or some of
the kooks who appear on usenet.

This is a logically untenable leap. If T and T' ---> X it does not imply
that T =~ T'.

The problem here is that you're reducing Marxism (and a particular type)
to Marxist economics. Marx's economics were no more or less sound than
other classical economists (there's a case to be made that they were, in
fact, more sound but I'm not going to pursue that). Claims about social
transformation in Marxism do not unequivically and inexhorably follow from
his economics. Certainly, no one who has read the Eighteenth Braumaire
(or show I say, who has at *least* read it) would be silly enough to make
such an argument.

So, if you're arguing against some bastardized Marxism propagated by some
net denizens and *perhaps* by the economic determinists (although I'm not
sure you've done enough justice to them!)... I don't really see the point.

I wasn't actually thinking of the Lenin-Luxemberg debate here. Nor was I
thinking of Marxist-Leninism, but rather of the type of marxism which came
to dominate the international independently of its dissenters (Lenin,
Gramsci, etc.)

You've never read any post-1940s Frankfurt school Marxism, have you? A
number of them became quite post-positivist in that mode.

But that's not relevant. I cite Popper here only because you seem to be
echoing his criteria for scientific theories. I'm not a Popperian.

Not at all. Revolutionary doctrine doesn't have to postulate that outcomes
are unavoidable.

Actually, the last statement is close to a tautology; or at least, it is a
trivial prediction.

The next is a huge leap--when you start talking about 3rd world Marxism
you're not talking about anything recognizable as Marxist economic THEORY.

[James' rant deleted. Some of it might well be true, but I think the terms
have shifted unrecognizeably from the classical vs. Marx debate]

Not necessarially. This is the future vs. past system distinction.
Moreover, it depends on what is being falsified. In this case, Marx's
near-term predictions about capitalism are 'falsified' (as have, frankly,
every attempt at prediction ever engaged in which specifies its terms
enough to be useful) but the leap to *what* in his theoretical purview has
been falsified needs to be better specified than you have done. Rather,
you've asserted that because X prediction was falsified that Marx's L
theory of Value (vis-a-vis other labor theories of value) has been
falsfied. You haven't provided even passable analytical or empirical
evidence for this other than through reference to an obviously false
syllogism.

Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
"Surely here is an opportunity to get rid of that great stick of a
character _Homo economicus_ and to replace him with someone real, like
Madame Bovary." -Donald McCloskey, _The Rhetoric of Economics_


author: Justin Flude

text:
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:52:14 -0500, Daniel Hugh Nexon
<[email]> wrote:

I have to agree with James on this point.  Marx grounds the necessity
for socialism on the objective limits that capitalism places in the
way of expanding production.  If it can be shown that capitalism
doesn't have such limits, that it can potentially expand production
forever, then the scientific basis for socialism must be ditched
(alongside my commitment to it).  There would perhaps be a *moral*
basis for socialism, that it leads to a nicer, fairer world, but then
there's a similar moral basis for a lot of things (such as good table
manners and going to church).

This was the substance of Luxemburg's (nb. not Lenin's, James) battle
with Bernstein.  After a prolonged period of class peace and economic
expansion, the "revisionists" argued that capitalism had overcome its
inherent limitations through the formation of cartels, planning,  and
state intervention.  Luxemburg tried to rescue the theory of
breakdown, yet ultimately failed because she fundamentally
misunderstood the Marxist method.  Unable to use the method to extend
the critique in line with changing reality, she instead located the
primary contradiction of capitalist production not *internally*, in
the production of capital itself, but *externally*, in the search for
non-capitalist markets where value could be realised.  She combatted
revisionism - with revisionism.  And that's been the pattern for most
"modernisers" of Marx ever since.

The necessary extension of the critique was subsequently made by Lenin
with his theory of moribund, decaying capitalism, capitalism that is
forced to modify its own free-market laws to survive, in
"Imperialism".  But the dispute over the "inevitable" collapse of
capitalism continued - Lenin remarked that there is always an
"economic" way out of any crisis for the capitalists, so in what sense
can we talk about its collapse as "inevitable"?

The answer was provided by Henryk Grossman, a Marxist economist of the
Frankfurt school, in his "Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the
Capitalist System - Being Also a Theory of Crises" (!) published in
1929 (right on cue :)  The aim of the work being a reconstruction of
Marx's theory of breakdown, Grossman explains that the economic
dynamics of capitalism lead to periodic and deepening social crises,
but the resolution of those crises in the direction of socialism
requires the conscious intervention of the working class.  Without the
subjective factor that can seize production and direct it in the
interests of the majority, there is always the potential for
capitalism to reorganise and restore profitability.  So there is
nothing "automatic" about the collapse of capitalism, yet the
situations where capitalism's failings are clearly exposed, and hence
the possibility of resolving them in a new way, do inevitably arise.

Justin


author: Malcolm

subject: Re: Ruddy Duck - rfi  Animal Aid rip RSPB apart in Radio Two interview. (monday)

text:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:10:50 GMT, Malcolm <[email]>
wrote:

Well done to Animal Aid Chairman A Tyler who dispelled all the
mistruths presented by the CONservation hooligans RSPB this afternoon.
It's claimed each duck shot is costing ï¿½803......of taxpayers money!!
It's ludicrous.

see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/contact_done.shtml

and you may hear the interviews again.

One thing is for sure. Despite the CONservation hooligans lies and
bluster these issues are well and truly in the public eye. Well done
BBC for airing it. And special praise to Animal Aid for keeping it in
the public domain.


author: Malcolm Kane

text:
In message <[email]>, Malcolm
<[email]> writes

*IF* this is true it is money well spent if it removes the threat to the
white headed duck.


author: T N Nurse

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Malcolm <[email]> wrote:

That's 3 times you've followed up your own posting, Pete.

"It's claimed"?? You mean "It's claimed" just like "It's claimed" that
the ruddy duck migrates to Spain?


author: Chris Maddock

subject:
Re: Ruddy Duck - rfi  Animal Aid rip RSPB apart in Radio Two interview.
 (monday)

text:
T N Nurse wrote:

Oh dear, is he still talikng to himself?
Isn't it sad when someone's only friend is Google - at least the only
one that tells him what he wants to know so that he can instigate more
lies and threats?


author: Quadibloc

subject:
Re: At Notre Dame -- Obama just blew a *great* OPPORTUNITY to call
	for SWIFT Passage of the Freedom of Choice Act!" (Rats!!)

text:
On May 17, 3:30 pm, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)  •• WHY be Unemployed?
www.LayoffRemedy.com ••" <[email]> wrote:

Ideal in what sense? He was going there to help build bridges and mend
fences. Being rude and insulting and confrontational is not part of
that.

John Savard


author: duke

subject: Re: At Notre Dame -- Obama just blew a *great* OPPORTUNITY to call for SWIFT Passage of the Freedom of Choice Act!"  (Rats!!)

text:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:30:53 GMT, "(ï¿½`ï¿½.ï¿½Craig Chiltonï¿½.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½)  ï¿½ï¿½ WHY be
Unemployed?  www.LayoffRemedy.com ï¿½ï¿½" <[email]> wrote:

Even buckwheat is not as stupid as you.

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****


author: pnyikos

text:
On May 17, 5:30 pm, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)  •• WHY be Unemployed?
www.LayoffRemedy.com ••" <[email]> wrote:

He's already talked about how the FOCA is no longer his first
priority.  And with good reason.  The baleful fallout on conscience
clauses, reproductive cloning, abolition of all women's right to be
given the option of looking at ultrasound, reinstatement of partial
birth abortion, etc.  is so great that he is wise to opt for piecemeal
promotion of those aspects of the FOCA that pro-choicers really want
and which pro-lifers won't be so up in arms about.

Yeah, and pro-lifers could really make hay on the above fallout.  Just
look at how much progress the pro-life movement has made since the
election, as shown in the latest Gallup poll.

Obama  took the prudent course.

 >The  timing would have been IDEAL!!

Yeah, a real in-your-face piece of divisiveness, like his famous "We
won" taunt.

Look up the word "child" in the OED or the Merriam-Webster dictionary,
and stop making this benighted assertion.

Or ootid, or penetrated oocyte, or morula, or blastocyst...

Peremptory value judgment.

Do you have statistics, or are you just talking off the top of your
head?

Do you have statistics, or are you just parroting pro-choice
propaganda?

Do you have statistics, or are you just parroting pro-abortion
propaganda?

So much for  couples wanting desperately to adopt a baby, eh?

Or is this last comment of yours completely unrelated to abortion?

...thus ruining the lives of three--her child's and the lives of the
couple who would have been able to adopt the baby.

And possibly hers--or haven't you read about women who regret their
abortions?

Do you actively loathe the women who carry signs saying "I regret my
abortion"?

I take it you disagree with Obama's words, "but we can still agree
that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made
casually."

Feminists for Life would take enormous exception.  Have you ever heard
of a book, _Real Choices_, by its founder, Frederica Mathewes-Green?

Get a book on embryology.  You may be astounded at the qualities of a
fetus. [as opposed to the pre-fetal stages of growth].

They are hardly more globs of cellular matter than you or I.

Peter Nyikos


text:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:30:53 GMT, "(ï¿½`ï¿½.ï¿½Craig Chiltonï¿½.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½)  ï¿½ï¿½ WHY
be Unemployed?  www.LayoffRemedy.com ï¿½ï¿½" <[email]>
wrote:

Don't quit your day job to try to be a political advisor.


author: Bill M

text:
"duke" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

AND HE IS BRILIANT COMPARED TO YOU!


text:
On May 18, 2:04 pm, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)  •• WHY be Unemployed?
www.LayoffRemedy.com ••" <[email]> wrote:

The word "ostrich" comes to mind here.

The words "unwanted by whom?" come to mind here.  There are millions
wanting to adopt babies.

Do you have an e-mail address for him, in case he doesn't?

....as do the vast majority of people calling themselves pro-choice in
the abortion newsgroups.  Some even assert that nobody is pro-
abortion.

Is it OK if I refer to you as pro-abortion?  I have had more respect
for the people who have accepted that label in talk.abortion than I do
for most pro-choicers posting here--not because they accepted the
label, but because they seemed to have more intellectual integrity
than the average pro-choicer posting to the newsgroup.

Few people are emotionally equipped to cope with children who have
been "wounded" by the wrong kinds of prior upbringing.  Meanwhile
there are long waiting lines to adopt even babies with Down syndrome,
or spina bifida, partly because of the huge success pro-abortion
propagandists have had.

I'll be glad to restrict "baby" to those who are born, but your
ostrich-like insistence on the "child" part is a matter of willful
ignorance.

See above.  And if they do adopt an older child, and it turns out to
be an incorrigible brat, their lives are ruined at least as surely as
that of the average woman who is denied abortion.

I'd like a reference to such studies--and also to some studies showing
what percentage of women who don't regret their abortions had prior
misgivings about them.

You move in narrow circles.   How many pro-choice rallies have you
attended?

I'll take that as a "Yes" answer.

What about you?  You'll read about lots of women who regret their
abortions.

The Bible also never mentioned cruelty to animals being wrong.  Paul
even shot down the one passage, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that
treads the grain" that seems to suggest otherwise.

Peter Nyikos


text:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:23:30 +0100, "Bill M" <[email]> wrote:

Of course, it took a crook of major proportions to sucker so many 'rats into his
fold.  But I was not one of them.

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****


author: Doug Berry

subject: Re: At Notre Dame -- Obama just blew a *great* OPPORTUNITY to call  for SWIFT Passage of the Freedom of Choice Act!" (Rats!!)

text:
The scrolls speak of the day, Tue, 19 May 2009 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT),
when the mysterious pnyikos <[email]> spoke thusly in
alt.atheism:

Well, then they should adopt one of the over 1,000,000 children
currently in need of a good home in the United States!

Oh, wait.. those kids are mostly minority, mostly able to walk and
dress themselves, and many have some medical issues.

Well, screw them! Bring on the perfect white babies!


author: Ray Fischer

text:
duke  <[email]> wrote:

The Pope?

Obviously you are.


author: dfgfdg

subject: Why not legalize OPIUM?  Why not opium dens on every corner?

text:
Why doesn't the United States of America legalize opium instead of having
pharmaceutical companies put patents on its derivatives (OxyContin, Vicodin,
etc.), and sell bags of raw opium at the supermarket (Safeway, Albertsons,
Wal-Mart, Vons, Ralphs, etc)?

They could also sell kits for people to hook themselves up to a permanent I.V.
machine to dispense HEROIN whenever the user desires.

Criminalizing opium and heroin only leads to more problems such as spreading
diseases and overdoses.  Legalizing and regulating OPIUM & HEROIN would make
life safe for the opiate user.


author: Bandario

subject: Re: Why not legalize OPIUM?  Why not opium dens on every corner?

text:
Did you have some kind of point or purpose?
Apart from posting completely off topic tripe?

"dfgfdg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Vicodin,
I.V.
spreading
make


author: das Kind

text:
dfgfdg wrote:

Guess why?
Because drugs are BAD(tm) and ILLEGAL(tm).
For you seem not to have informed yourself well about
prohibition history you should eradicate this gap in
your education.
btw. check out the international antiprohibitionist league.

das Kind
regards from .de


author: Eric Johnson

text:
On 12-11-2003 23:03, in article [email], "dfgfdg"
<[email]> wrote:

For most drugs it is this way. We wonder why not for just some.

If they wish. Have you ever seen a Beer Hat?

Agreed, though brother Nate will melt with apoplexy when he reads what you
wrote.

EJ


text:
Good idea. Why don't you run for public office on that idea? Mike.
"dfgfdg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Vicodin,
I.V.
spreading
make


author: Mac The Finger

text:
dfgfdg <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

It doesn't look as though 'they' want to make life easier and safer
for those people.  Also buy keeping these drugs illegal more crime is
commited thus creating jobs.  Court guards, prison guards,
stenographers, police officers, judges, lawyers etc.  You get the
picture.  Do you think that there are many drug defence lawyers who
would want the government to legalize heroin or any currently illict
recpharm? Or drug prosecutors?  A retired lawyer I met in costa rica
started out as a fireman but went to night school to become a lawyer.
He specialized in dope busts.  And made a killing.  And retired early.
 Very early.  That's just one case of how the current legislation
provides an affluent lifestyle to some, and of course misery to
others.


author: Delta Nine

text:
Bandario wrote:

Well, it's not really off topic for any of the groups except ADP (WHY DO
YOU BASTARDS KEEP CROSPOSTING THIS CRAP HERE?!?)  I mean, it's political
(TPD) it's on opiates, which are hard drugs (ADH), and it's a drug (AD)


text:
Bandario wrote:

Physician, heal thyself!  You're criticizing him for breaking usenet
etiquette, but you broke a rule or two yourself, top poster.


author: Jack H.

text:
"Bandario" <[email]> wrote in message
news:6fBsb.8887$[email]...

I thought he wanted to tell every one that he is a junkie!

Howm Grone J


author: Brother Nate

text:
Eric Johnson wrote:

There are literally hundreds of overdose deaths that have
resulted from oxycontin abuse in the last few years.  Simple
legality is not a panacea.  Medications like oxycontin can
be used safely when they are treated with the respect due to
medicines, but trouble arises when an immature person decides
to treat them like playthings, or when somebody with a bloated
ego "on loan from God" decides that his superior willpower
will enable him to ignore the risk of taking increasing
numbers of pills every day.

Frankly I don't mind all that much when drug legalization
advocates chase their tails.  The thing that would make me
nervous would be the unlikely chance that they ever succeed
in electing pro-legalization representatives to Congress.
In that regard it would be difficult for you to ruffle my
feathers.

I'll gladly confess that it makes me furious when young
people are told that there is no danger to treating addictive
drugs as toys, but in his statement above "dfgfdg" makes it
clear that there really ARE problems to addiction.  He's
wrong about where the blame for those problems lies, but
he's essentially correct to the extent that we could probably
be more effective in our efforts at early detection and
treatment if spouses and parents and friends were able to
come forward with reports of abuse without the fear that
their spouse, child, or loved one was going to be brutalized
in prison instead of getting the help they really need.


author: Dan

text:
On 11/16/2003 11:27 AM, Mac The Finger wrote:

And these people add minimal value per investment dollar.  They are a
drag on the economy because they are adding no real value given the
incredible amount of money invested.  Would an investment banker make
this choice?


text:
"Delta Nine" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bouoh2$h3m$[email]...

I'll only bottom post when the original contents are worth reading.
As for replying to all crossposted groups; the poster obviously thought it
was relevant to all these groups; so any reply should also assume the same
degree of relevancy.
'They could also sell kits for people to hook themselves up to a permanent
I.V. machine to dispense HEROIN whenever the user desires'

They could stop letting schoolkids on the internet too. But neither of these
things are going to happen.

Since you've decided that the original post was something other than a bunch
of crap: none of this will happen under the current system because the
recreational use of these substances does not support the current system.

It is true that the illegal nature of opium and heroin causes many problems.
But if you were able to have a clean and regular supply of heroin pumped
into your body; you probably wouldn't be a snugly fitting little cog in the
works or be productive towards the goals of 'they'. There is no productive
value to these drugs in the views of the current power structure and so you
will not be seeing this under the current scheme.


author: Alan Gerbilsberg

text:
"Jack H." <[email]> wrote in message
news:bp0ce7$q8r$[email]...

 I think it's a particular retard that goes by a number of different handles
but massively crossposts these imbecile questions across the usenet. He's
been doing it for months with the questions always being along the same
lines i.e. "Why aren't I allowed to do exactly as I want, especially where
drugs are concerned?" of course it's always phrased as a question such as
"why doesn't everybody grown their own dope?" or "why doesn't my tobacconist
sell heroin?". In general all good questions, most of which all of us have
probably asked ourselves at some stage and come to a fairly simple
conclusion, this moron however seems incapable of introspection and so
broadcasts every random thought about drugs that enter his addled brain as
profound question upon which he must seek the advice of others. Or.... it's
just about conceivable that he thinks he is forcing others into thought,
although this is unlikely as it would require an original thought from him
and as we are by now all aware it is something he seems singularly incapable
of doing.
AG


author: Manny Davis

text:
Brother Nate <[email]> wrote in
news:bp04d5$6cr$[email]:

No one has stated that legalization is a cure-all for every
problem related to drug use. People would still OD if we
had a free market in all drugs and people OD now on drugs
that are under complete prohibition.

But he alone will suffer the consequences of that decision. That
is but one very good reason why it should be HIS decision, and not
yours or anyone elses.

Yes, extremely unlikely. Those who wait for justice from
government are in for a long long wait.

I have noticed that you seem to derive an inordinate amount
of pleasure in pointing out again and again that legalization,
even the socialist models that many "reformers" advocate, is
a political impossibility.

That's an interesting bit of gobbledygook. Let me see if
I understand you correctly. You would prefer it if people could
rat out their family members to the state, thus forcing the
"abuser" into the nearest reeducation center against his will.
The evidence of "abuse" consists of volitional, self-directed
personal behavior that puritans like yourself think is sinful.


author: Draebyerg

text:
Bandario wrote:

Jeez, another arrogant putz that thinks that just because he's able to
do something, he's entitled to do it, without any regard to established
protocols or courtesies. In this country, we read left to right, top to
bottom. If there's things in a post that don't apply to what you're
responding to, then you trim them out, not quote the entire thing, add
your two cents to the top then make everyone reading, read from the
bottom up just to find out what the hell you're talking about.

Then to top it off, you're supporting an obvious troll. Another huge
no-no. Welcome to my idiot filter. Don't bother coming back with a
tantrum, you're plonked.


text:
Bandario wrote:

I never said his ideas were good ones (esp. that iv for heroin).  Your
original bitch-out session criticized his crossposting.  I pointed out
that the post was on-topic for all the groups but one.  Also, I pointed
out that if you're gonna top post, you shouldn't criticize anyone else
for breaking usenet etiquette.

At what point did you get the idea that I agree with the guy who started
this thread?


author: ComaDose

text:
"Alan Gerbilsberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bp0ri3$tc2$[email]...
handles
tobacconist
it's
incapable

Well put, AG!


text:
"Alan Gerbilsberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bp0ri3$tc2$[email]...
handles
tobacconist
it's
incapable

I recognize him.

Lots of heroin question.

also I remember why cant I give my kid a brick of hash to chew on to relax
him .

Troll moron but every now and then I gotta say something back.

How are things in your side of the newsgroup this has been posted to?

Howm Grone J


author: Shaun Rimmer

text:
"Alan Gerbilsberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bp0ri3$tc2$[email]...
handles
tobacconist
it's
incapable

YUP, you got it in one - he's a _TROLL!_  ',;~}~

Shaun aRe - and a poor one at that.


text:
Manny Davis wrote:

Actually "dfgfdg" said it, in the paragraph above that you
quoted in your response to me.  Are you just not paying any
attention at all to the lies that people on your side tell?

Many drug abusers want to believe that their actions have no
impact on those around them, but the actual number of cases
in which it's true are relatively small.  If a butterfly flapping
its wings in the Amazon basin can contribute to cyclones in
Southeast Asia then why is it so far fetched to suggest that
an opiate addict in Florida might affect, for instance, patients
who rely on doctor-supervised use of pain medications to control
their own pain.  Every report of abuse just makes the level
of scrutiny and skepticism that much higher about new requests
for pain relief.

Those who define "justice" solely in terms of the drugs they're
allowed to abuse are already suffering from self-inflicted
delusions.

I prefer to call it unlikely, mainly because I suspect that
some day your so-called "reformers" will probably realize
that they cannot repeal the entirety of US drug policy all
in one fell swoop, and if/when that happens maybe they'll
realize that I've been right all along in pointing out that
every drug deserves to be considered on its own merits.

The evidence of abuse should consist of the testimony of
the most directly affected family members about the effects
that their loved one's behavior is causing - damage that
the addict usually isn't honest enough to admit.  As long
as a drug abuser can do his own thing without it being
noticed even by his closest family members, I'm not sure
how that could be possible for police to detect or punish.


author: bandario (nospam

text:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:07:09 GMT, Draebyerg
<[email]> wrote:

No problem.
Who exactly is making these rules? And what country is THIS?


text:
On 14-11-2003 16:39, in article bp2sud$4a1$[email], "Brother
Nate" <[email]> wrote:

Because of the effects and ambient rules of prohibition.

EJ


author: Adamski the Rush-ian

text:
Brother Nate wrote:

There will be overdoses whether drugs  are illegal or prohibited. What you
ignore is that they are more likely in a climate of prohibition, where drug
use remains a secretive, stigmatised activity, and where effective harm
minimisation education, which is based on the premise of "people will use
drugs regardless, so best they do so safely".
   What you singuarly ignore are the other conequences *unique* to
prohibition; the burgeoning population of non-violent prisoners incarcerated
for breaking the drug laws, the daily war being waged on city streets the
world over against petty criminals and dealers, many of whom would be able
to avoid criminality were they to be able to buy drugs legally.

way with words. No matter how much eveidence is presented to you regarding
the consequences of prohibition, you dogmatically stick to your position of
"drugs are dangerous, and harm some people, therefore carry on with
prohibition". dfgfdg just doesn't happen to have the ability to twist words
in the way that you do; you know as well as I do that he means legalisation
would be an answer to many of the problems *created* by prohibition, which
are far worse than any problems brought to light in the century proceeding
ther start of prohibition, when drugs were legally available. The truth is,
that apart from dependancy, which in most cases can be avoided by decent
education of drug users, the Victorians did not see drugs as the soul
destroying crime inducing agents that we have labelled them today. All of
those factors followed on from prohibition, and are an inherent factor of
any valuable black market. As was stated in a Guardian news article about
the current drug laws, all drug warriors, and agents of prohibition, should
be made to carve the following statement upon blocks of stone, until the
message sinks in
       "The use of any drug, will never become safer, when the supply of
that drug is handed over to criminals, as happens by default under
prohibition"

Trouble arises when the above metioned persoality types decide to drink
excessive quantities of alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or do a whole legion of
risky activities, but we do not seek to place them under criminal sanction.
With particular regard to alcohol, where the arguments are identical, your
favoured policy of prohibition was tried and was seen for what it was, a
dismal and divisive failure, just as the current prohibition of drugs is
being seen to be by many millions of people the world over.

.
 This is in fact the area where you show your true colours Nate. Your real
objection is to people using drugs recreationaly for whatever reason. Your
beliefs about the nature of recreational drug use lead you to believ that
society should enact laws to impose your viewpoint upon everyone. Whatever
religious or moral benefit you see in not using drugs recreationally you
wish everyone to see as well, and are quite happy to use the criminal law to
force everyone to behave as you believe they should.
   Thus you true nature as some sort of proto drug fascist is exposed. You
fail to understand the basic tenets that our society is built upon, and why
we objected to and resisted the Soviet Union, in fact it would not surprise
me at all if you professed some admiration for the former Soviet Union.
Allow me to explain. Our society is known as a liberal democracy. That is
the political tradition that we follow in the West, and it is precisely that
philosophy that allows us call ourselves FREE. It was eveloved in Europe and
the fledgling United States as the response to tyranny, and seeks to grant
all citizens the greatest possible liberty, without granting licence. It is
based upon the political theories of such heavywieghts as John Locke, and
John Stuart Mill in particular. Mill laid down in his essay "On Liberty" the
correct limits of the power of the state to coerce. He stated that the state
has the right to coerce its mebers to protect life or property, but not to
protect individuals from themselves. John Locke stated that "yet every man
has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any right to but
himself". In other words it is my right to treat my body as I wish, not
yours or Bush and Ashcroft's, but mine and mine alone.
    Now you will counter that by saying, "Oh but the drugs laws have been
passed by our legislature", and indeed they have. So was Hitler's Enabling
Act pased by the Riechstag, and Stalinist laws were passed by the Duma.
Whether a society qualifies for the label of FREE, depends not upon a show
of hands, or a judicial decision, but upon the nature and substance of that
law to begin with.
    This is the fundamental reason why the United States has a Constitution
and Bill of Rights, to prevent the introduction of laws inconpatible with
the concepts of Liberty. Having made that point you should be aware of the
Supreme Court jucgement in the case of US v Jin Fuey Moy, the very first
test case of the Harrison Narcotics Act. The Supreme Court said "While the
Opium Registration Act may have a moral end as well as revenue.....in view
of the grave doubts as to its costitutionality except as a revenue measure,
construes it as such".
    Subsequent decisions may have been moulded to suit the political climate
of the US at that time but the fact remains, the first time the Supreme
Court examined drug prohibition they declared it unconstitutional.
   Fortuanately exactly what you say will never happen is happening, people
are organising to repeal prohibition. The only uncertainty is when, for as
with all bad laws, they eventually are done away with. The only danger with
drug prohibition is whether it suceeds in completly destroying our society
first.
   I charge, sir, that in supporting drug prohibition, you are an enemy of
freedom, an enemy of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a supporter
of the right of a small group of individuals to impose their way of life and
beliefs upon others. Fortunately we have a word for people who wish to act
like that, we call them fascists, and if you support the war on drugs, then
you support a policy which is fascist in its nature and results, as the
current US prison statistics show.


text:
Brother Nate <[email]> wrote in
news:bp2sud$4a1$[email]:

That's a rather broad interpretation of what he wrote.

A person's drug habit may cause others emotional pain.

That's life.

The opiate addict in Florida will not prevent other people from
getting the pain relief medication they may need, unless the opiate
addict is politician. Politicians and government are what prevent
physicians from treating the pain their patients are in, not ordinary
drug users.

I meant justice in terms of the hundreds of thousands of innocent
people incarcerated because of drug laws, and those murdered during the
quest for a (some) drug-free America.

You always seem to forget about them. Here's a reminder:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
http://www.november.org/

Most "reformers" would agree with the entire paragraph. I've
only been hanging out in tpd for a short time, but I don't see
anyone arguing for a free market in all drugs.

You need a totalitarian society to do what you want.


author: Shadow

text:
I dunno,
Hey, out of curiosity when ya filter someone does it kill all messages
containing that word or just postings by the user? If its just the user that
means you can read his post by reading my post right? if its the word then
you don't even get to read my post right? how can you tell that they are a
troll?

I would like to try opium some time, it seems to be really rare around here
and it goes fast when someone gets it, acid on the otherhand is everywhere
same with meth, there was actually a report recently that the local schools
have more meth then pot flowing around.

ok, i'm done

-Shadow


text:
Adamski the Rush-ian wrote:

Is that why there are orders of magnitude MORE people who
die from causes related to legal nicotine and alcohol than
from all of the illicit drugs combined?

All I do is reflect on the fact that we now lose more lives
every year than were killed by all the gangsters' guns in
the entire 13 years of Prohibition combined.

Actually in the city of Bloomington, Indiana (and probably
where you live as well) more people are arrested each day for
alcohol offenses than for other drugs, and since Bloomington
passed its smoking ban in all public places we've started
writing tickets for smoking too.

While I agree that Prohibition was a failed policy, I suspect
that I differ with you on exactly WHY it failed.  Prohibition
was not sufficiently flexible - it rubbed too many people the
wrong way, and that made it vulnerable when Hearst and his
Yellow Journalists came along and highlighted the relatively
small number of people who were dying in gangland violence,
while ignoring the ones who (even then) were dying in droves
from alcohol-related diseases.

Prohibition was brought down for largely political reasons
(not because of any structural defect), and it took literal
decades before better, more flexible constraints could be
enacted governing alcohol.  It would have been better to
endure a strategic withdrawal than the rout that happened
instead.  So in that regard I would rather see the Controlled
Substances Act administered in a flexible way, possibly
giving ground towards age-restricted MJ since that appears
to be something that draws high response in polls.

It would be better to be flexible on MJ and preserve the CSA
than it would be to be inflexible and allow public opinion
about MJ to bring down 30 years of US drug policy concerning
all drugs.  At its roots the CSA is a good framework, and
it serves a valuable purpose.  It deserves to be continued.
After the repeal of Prohibition the death rate from cirrhosis
of the liver rose for 40 years, and I would not care to see
another 40 years pass after a demise of the CSA before laws
came into effect to reign in all of the drugs it governs.

My objection is to people treating drugs carelessly as
though they were toys.  To the extent that people drink
alcohol in a responsible manner (or better yet treat it
as a sacrament in Communion) I have no objection.  And
similarly I have no objection if MJ is treated as a sacrament
in Rastafarian churches - Rasta begins with reverence for
God and there's a lot more to the religion than just getting
stoned.

I believe that it is the right of society to enact laws which
reflect a consensus.  In our democratic process, the consensus
is that of the majority of the population, as limited and
constrained by the Judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution.
At this time the Supreme Court doesn't appear interested in
declaring drug laws unConstitutional, and voters appear to
support them, so that means that your side is out of luck.

If your side had any grasp of how to make the system work
for you then you might be a lot less frustrated.  But instead
you come up with these snide jabs at religion and morality,
and you alienate most of the people who might otherwise be
inclined to support a compassionate approach to drug policy.

I have no admiration at all for the former Soviet Union.  Its
anti-religious prejudices are far more aligned with your own
views than with mine, Adamski.

If your treatment of your body as you wished had no impact
on those around you it would evoke less revulsion from the
people on my side.  If you didn't publicly reject traditional
ideas about morality and spirituality, and if you didn't
reject the notion that everyone is entitled to their own
input into whatever consensus is established about responsible
behavior, then maybe people like me would be less likely to
distrust your ability to understand when you're doing things
that are harmful to the world around you.

Your insistence on comparing the US democratic process with
Nazism and Stalinism doesn't help your argument either.
There are things I would do a lot differently than Mr Ashcroft
has done, but that does not make him a Nazi, and it doesn't
make you Thomas Paine.

Don't hold your breath for it to happen this time.

Where?  If this is what you call "organization" then I won't
be all that worried.

Boo hoo.

If I was so inclined I would point out that you're resorting
to simple ad hominem attacks, but instead I think I prefer
to recall an old Afghan proverb:

"The insults of one's enemies are a tribute to the brave."


text:
On 14-11-2003 23:11, in article bp3jtn$c6p$[email], "Brother
Nate" <[email]> wrote:

Hip Hip Hoooray!

Utopia is spreading.

EJ


author: Pete nospam Zakel

text:
In article <bp3jtn$c6p$[email]> Brother Nate <[email]> writes:

Note that alcohol and tobacco kill a higher percentage of their users than
most illicit drugs as well.  And the ratio for illicit drugs gets better
when they become licit.

And marijuana, of course, kills none of its users from direct causes.  But
of course, you would like to see it legal medically (although you keep
repeating that "smoking a medicine will never be accepted" as your
prohibitionist mantra), but you still want to see it confiscated from people
who enjoy using it, and maybe even forcing those people into reeducation camps
until they can be brainwashed into fearing to use it recreationally.

People during prohibition did not just die from "gangsters' guns", Nate.
And alcohol use rose during prohibition to almost pre-prohibition levels
before it was repealed.

And then there's the aspect of freedom and liberty, which you don't seem to
put much value on, not to mention privacy, autonomy, self-direction and
pursuit of happiness.

Isn't Bloomington a college town?

Not always.

And the fact that you consider us to be enemies speaks volumes.  I thought
we were all Americans with equal rights and freedom of speech?  (Well, not
everyone posting here is a US citizen, but I believe that all humans have
equal rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, bodily autonomy, self
determination and pursuit of happiness.)

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

Hartley's Second Law:
	Never sleep with anyone crazier than yourself.


author: Jake Wildstrom

text:
The Prophet Brother Nate  known to the wise as [email], opened the Book of Words, and read unto the people:

I'd blame that on two facts which are, as far as I can tell,
invariants of social systems and regulations: first, more people use
alcohol and tobacco than other drugs; second, alcohol and tobacco,
pharmacologically, have a greater likelihood of causing real health
damage in standard usage than almost all illegal drugs (I'd say 'all',
but I'm wary of absolutes; no other drug I know of, however, has as
much potential as alcohol and tobacco for harm when used in standard
doses).

I anticipate your response to the first fact will be that the War on
Drugs is the only thing keeping it true. This would be a blindingly
ignorant statement coming from someone who once claimed to be a
student of history: we've had access to a fair variety of intoxicants
for millenia (the psychoactive properties of marijuana, and the
narcotic properties of opium, were learned early on, as were the
effects of tobacco and coca in the regions which grew same). In every
time and every place I can think of, and regardless of local laws [1],
alcohol was always the most popular intoxicant by a long shot. It's
worth noting that, with the exception of a few footontes, intoxicants
other than alcohol are notably absent from ancient histories. THis is
because their use was largely marginal -- they simply didn't appeal to
the population at large, whereas alcohol has been, from Sumer on, a
major industry of every civilization which didn't ban it. Tobacco's
popularity I can only attribute to its intense addictiveness.

Repealing drugs prohibition, then, would not lead to the widespread
addiction which you seem to fear: simply put, most people are not
interested. If most people were interested, legalization would be a
lot easier. ANyone who really wants to use is already using. There may
be a small spike of curiosity when and if drugs are legalized, but
populations tend to normalize to what interests them, and after an
initial wave of interest, most people will just go back to what they
want.

[1] The possible exception to this rule is any society which attained
any success in banning alcohol. Alcohol remained popular during
prohibition in America, of course, but some Muslim countries, aided by
the faith of their citizens, had somewhat more success in prohibiting
alcohol -- but generally not bothering with other substances, so I can
imagine there were times in Muslim nations when alcohol was in fact
less popular than more culturally accepted intoxicants such as
cannabis and khat.

People died of alcohol poisoning _during_ prohibition too, you
know. As a proportion of users, the number surely went up, thanks to
the unreliability of the marketplace. This is why regulation (not
prohibition) is a good thing.

You seem incapable of learning lessons from history. Prohibition
failed because it attempted to coerce people out of peaceful
actions. People (justifiably) see the purpose of law as to prevent
people (or otherwise legally-responsible entities, such as
corporations) from harming other people. Alcohol use, in and of
itself, did not do this. People realized that the law was not
functioning to their benefit and lost respect for it.

This would have happened no matter how a plan of prohibition was
carried out.

I object to your presuming 'carelessly' and 'as toys' as
synonomous. There are many things people do recreationally which carry
an element of risk: water-skiing, bungee-jumping, surfing,
hang-gliding. By your definition, these are used 'as toys'. Mopst
people who do them, however, maintain a healthy respect for the risks
and do so _carefully_.

What sort of non-sacramental usages of alcohol do you approve of? What
constitutes a 'responsible manner' in your estimation?

I consider mysticism to be a personal affair. There are many who
prefer to do so outside the structure of an organized religion, and I
think that is a respectable and praiseworthy activity. Some of these
approach their mysticism through the use of psychoactives -- again,
not an entirely farfetched idea, as many of the psychoactive drugs
allow greater receptivity to the mystical. What do you think of such
people, and how do you believe they should be treated?

Right, which means we should all give up and go home? This is a debate
here. We are not debating what is -- we're painfully clear on that. We
are debating what should be. And part of bringing about the best laws
is convincing others that they're the best. So if your best response
is 'the majority doesn't agree with you', you obviously don't care
about the quality of our laws, merely about their popularity.

I'll posit the radical notion that 'spirituality', while an admirable
concept, should not be one whose practice (or lack thereof) is
mandated by law.

If your objections to drugs are based in spirituality, you're welcome
to them, and you are welcome to convince others to share them. But
spirituality is a poor basis for law, and if you're trying to get your
spirituality enshrined in law, you are a friend to no cause, least of
all your own.

As for morality, I believe law should be controlled by areligious
morality: namely, the sorts of concepts whose 'rightness' or
'wrongness' is not one given by a religious code. If people of any or
no religion could all agree that something's wrong, chances are that
it is.

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|   D. Jacob Wildstrom -- Math monkey and freelance thinker   |
|   Graduate Student, University of California at San Diego   |
| "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into        |
|  theorems."     -Alfred Renyi                               |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily endorsed by the
University of California or math department thereof.


text:
Sadly Nate as I predicted you would merely heat up your forge and blast us
all with another session from the master wordsmith.
  My point still stands, the use of the criminal sanction to control
personal vices is against the fundamental principals of Liberal Democracy.
It is that theory, and that alone which gives true freedom. All other
systems sre merely examples of control, wheree the citizen is "free to do as
I say". The fact that you can posit if the majority of a community wishes to
see a law passed then it should be upheld, really shows jusy how ignorant
you are as to why the US has a constitution. After all did not the majority
of the German population elect Hitler, did not the majority of the Reichstag
agree to the Enabling Act, the Nuremberg Laws, and the Night and Fog law?
I'm quite sure that were a secret poll taken of Germans in 1943, they would
have said they were quite happy to see their neighbours rounded up for
religion or political belief. According to you that's fine and dandy,
because the majority agree with it.
   The purpose of a constitution is to protect against those who would abuse
other's freedom. And the fact remains, whether you like it or not, that if I
sit in my appartment and shoot up heroin or smoke marijuana, I am not going
to infringe on your propery or life in any way. I may upset and worry my
relatives and friends by my actions, but that, and this is the essence of my
point, is not sufficent reason for use of the *criminal law* to be deployed.
    The fact that you can support a policy openly called a *War* as a
domestic policy shows just how little imagination you have. Lets make no
mistake about this. It is not a War on Drugs; drugs have no sentience, and
care not whether they are used by addicts or destroyed by DEA incinerator.
It is a *War on Drug USERS*, most of who have families which are destroyed
by the creul puishment of imprisonment for drug use/sale. It is in many
respects a civil war that is being fought on our streets every day.
    What you attempt to allude to is that anyone who wishes to see an end to
the Drug War, wishes to see absolutely no regulation of drugs whatsoever.
Nothing could be further from the truth. What people want is a sane response
to drug use, that does not see ever increasing prison populations,
under-treatment of chronic pain and gang warfare on the streets as
inevitabilities that we should just accept, rather than advocating and
lobbying for a wiser policy before wa sacrifice another generation as Drug
War Fodder.
   Atfer all, there are only two groups of people who actually *benefit*
from the choice of  prohibition by criminal law as the framework for drug
control. They are 1) The black marketeers and sundry other criminals
associated with the black market in drugs. Were criminal sanction to be
replaced wth civil regulation of drug sales, their markets would collapse.
Just as the very last people who wanted alcohol prohibition repealed, the
last people to want an end to the War on Drugs are the various cartels ans
syndicates involved in supplyig illicit drugs today. The generals and top
lieutenants in these organisations are immune from the law in 99% of cases,
they recieve political protection and such like, for them prohibition
represents little more than a sophisticated marketing strategy, guarenteed
to keep prices high, and new customers arriving. 2) Symbiotically with the
Mafia dons and capos, the other group who wish to see prohibition extended
as long as possible, are the drug warriors, DEA, narcotics taskforces, as
well as the fat corrections industry, and other fellow travellers. Their
livelihoods depend on drugs being illegal, were repeal to occur  many of
them would be out of work, (though any sensible government would repeal
prohibition and use thier expertise in smuggling techniques to work stopping
Nuclear, Chemical , and Biological weapons proliferation, (a far more real
threat to humanity than drugs has ever been).Replacing prohibition with
regulation would require a number of  bureaucrats to oversee the system, but
nothing like the swollen number of cops, currently growing fat on the backs
of our communities, trying to stop something that cannot be stopped.
    Nate, you remind me of a cartoon I saw of a street in some futuristic
city, where all was controlled, CCTV on every corner, armd patrols searching
everyone just on a whim, mandatory drug tests for all. One man was turning
to the other and saying "And they said we couldn't win the War on
Drugs".....
   How far, and what price in civic values are you willing to pay, to try
and ensure people do not do what they wish with thier own bodies, in their
own time, at home?  Do not just say, "Well civic virtue is almost all gone
anyway", because prohbition is one of the things that got rid of it.


text:
Ðªï¿½ wrote:

Would be a brilliant idea, except the poppy seeds they sell in grocery
stores are not opium poppys.  They're another variety with no
psychoactive chemicals in them.


text:
(Jake Wildstrom) wrote:

That's not true, at least not in my case. I would very much like
to try smoking opium. But I can't try it because I don't know anyone
who has sells it, and I am at a point in my life where the penalty
of getting caught isn't worth it.

I doubt I'm alone.

But they were making booze at a time when making booze was illegal, and
that illegality raised prices dramatically. The lure of high profits
attracted people who didn't know what they were doing into the business,
unless you believe the poisonings were intentional.

Today there are millions of people who brew their own beer. How often
do people die from drinking home-brewed beer today? My guess is not many.
How many unregulated meals have you cooked and served to other people?
Have you killed anyone yet?

It failed because the U.S. Government didn't (or couldn't) do what
was necessary to enforce it. Governments throughout history have
succeeded in coercing people out of peaceful actions. It is one of the
things governments do best. All it takes is power and the willingness
to use it.

As I object to people presuming "dangerous" and "unregulated"
as synonomous.

...


text:
Jake Wildstrom wrote:

It would would required less words just to admit that being
legal doesn't make dangerous substances benign.

I think it would be a mistake to rule out any influence
of the legal fight against drug abuse, but I would never
attribute any sweeping all-powerful effects purely to the
laws of man.

It makes a sort of dopey-looking straw man, but then who
wants a straw man that might be hard to kick the stuffing
out of?

People use intoxicants that are readily available.  Before
the application of full scale scientific agriculture to the
cultivation of opium there simply wasn't enough of it to
make a big impact.  Modern economics change the dynamics
dramatically.

You can believe whatever you want to believe.  Personally
I believe that a legalization of illegal drugs would
increase their use *and* their abuse.

I draw different conclusions from history than you do.

Would it, b'God?  Today's rules governing alcohol seem to
enjoy a broad base of support.  There are clearly some ways
of implementing substance use constraints that don't evoke
the sort of resentment that Prohibition did.  There is
nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of government
attempts to control substance availability/abuse.  The
place where I believe our present approach goes astray is
that we overreact and resort to harshness in many cases
where compassion would be more appropriate.

Boo hoo.

Drinking a glass of wine or beer as a beverage with a meal.
Or even drinking several glasses in a setting where nobody
is going to go out and jump in their car, or their boat, or
fire up a power tool.

I believe that people who start their own religions typically
face the same sort of uphill struggle for acceptance and
the same sort of failure rates as most small businesses.

To the extent new religions cultivate a respect for God
they have my sympathy, but I have little respect for
hypocrites who try to use personal "mysticism" as an
excuse for their drug abuse.

And I believe I am clear on this: if you want to make
changes in US law then the place you need to do it is
in Congress.  Personally I don't envision any sweeping
changes to law - rather I look towards sentencing reform
and reclassification of one individual substance (MJ)
to better reflect its nature, dangers, and general
seriousness.

I care about the procedures that are necessary to enact
change.  As long as you ignore those processes anything
you say about what laws "should" be will be moot.


text:
Adamski the Rush-ian wrote:

And my point still stands that the penalties I advocate
for drug abuse are civil rather than criminal.

Too bad for you that so many drunks and addicts of other
drugs have ignored and trampled the freedoms of those around
them.  Drugs are not the only thing these people have abused.

As I have pointed out before, I agree with my hero General
McCaffrey that the metaphor "War on Drugs" has outlived
its usefulness.  Calling it a "war" has led America into
what I consider to be acts of desperation in an attempt
to blot out drug abuse "once and for all".

The fact of the matter is that we will be coping with drug
abuse for as long as there are drugs in the world and people
who want to abuse them.  We need a response that can be
sustained over the long haul.

If you are in favor of controls then I'd be interested to
hear what those controls would be, how they would be enforced,
and on what basis you would justify them.

Why is it, for example, that you wouldn't give heroin to a
13 year old?  I assume it's safe for me to assume that you're
at least in favor of keeping heroin away from 13 year olds,
right?


text:
Andy Katz wrote:

To be honest, I've never seen any statistics about it
that I thought were anything other than anecdotal or
grossly biased.

So what ABOUT those figures?  Cite some, I'd be happy
to finally see some that have credibility.

Take a look at anything posted by "[email]",
or any of the slams people here make against the religious
right (and I use that term because the other things they're
called here are idiotic lies).

Actually I would agree with you on that point, but probably
not in the way you think.  State and federal governments
are already backing off of these cases, partly because
there just aren't the resources to prosecute them or the
prison cells to house them, but also because it's clear
that there's eventually going to be a better response and
there's no point in clogging our legal system with these
cases in the meanwhile.

Consensus will be whatever experts, evidence, and public
opinion make it.  Our democratic process determines the
outcome of these questions, and I will attempt to live by
whatever it decides.


text:
"Delta Nine" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bp0j54$prk$[email]...
established
to
that
then
a
here
everywhere
schools

But there's a guy posts on one of these (alt.drugs) groups that has a link
in his sig to a place sells papaver somniforum (sp?) seeds at around $6/oz
(? I think), lots of varieties, all good and legal-like!

Might just order me some o' those!

Shaun aRe


author: El Rayo-X

text:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:32:30 GMT, Manny Davis <[email]>
wrote:

snip

An individual in a free society is presumed to be capable of
regulating their own conduct. When it has been demonstrated that an
individual poses a danger to more than themselves, then a regulatory
agent may become necessary. I think that such an agent should only be
applied to that particular individual. Their behavior cannot simply be
mapped on to an entire society and used to justify a tyrannical
usurpation of basic human rights (such as the sovereignty one
certainly has over their own conciousness!)  If you're stupid,
everything is dangerous.


text:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:29:19 -0500, Brother Nate
<[email]> wrote:

snip

Perhaps you could enlighten me on the constitutional requirement of
"acceptance" for a religion. Then maybe you could explain the measure
of a religions "success" rate.

Your "God" might command a little more respect if there were any
evidence that it actually existed.

snip


text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

So?
Who are you to say what I can smoke or not?

THAT is the point.
If the federal govt. makes cigs and alcohol legal then who are they to
criminalize things LESS harmful.

Just a cluster fuck if ya ask me.

And THAT is why you think opium is bad????

So?

Who are you to decide what another person does??

Not how I see it

So legalize weed and tax it.
If something is treated as a poison it becomes a poison, if something is
treated as a resource it becomes a resource.
Plain  and simple.
Instead of money out there would be money in. The government is not there to
guide our morality.

Hey, you have a stick up yer ass as to what I should be able to do with my
time.

I am an adult, If I want to sky dive I will. If I want to Bungee jump, guess
what, I will. Your thoughts on how I live my live are but a mote of dust in
the wind, small beans, meaningless.

So I can smoke pot in my home??

I have the same lack of respect for people who have no respect for others.
You are the Hypocrite. I hope you take the time to look at yourself and
admit it.

No  It is not the "right of society" to do any such thing.
Live and let live is the only RIGHT of society.
man  you are really funny.

http://www.taima.org/nas/marimed.htm

check it out.

And as for the rights of society, how bout this juicy factoid

In November 1996 overwhelming majorities of voters in the U.S. states of
California and Arizona voted 56% vs. 44% (CA) and 65% vs. 35% (AZ) to
legalise possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical use when
recommended by a doctor.
In November 1998 voters in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona
(for the second time) voted the same way. Voters in Colorado and Washington,
D.C. also approved of medical marijuana but their votes were ignored. When
the Washington D.C. vote was finally counted in 1999 medical marijuana
legalisation had passed 69% vs. 29%. In November 1999 voters in Maine voted
61% vs. 39% to legalise marijuana as a medicine. In June 2000 medicinal
marijuana became legal in Hawaii.

So why cant the majority have their say as YOU say Is the RIGHT OF SOCIETY"S
MAjority???

That is why you are a hypocrite.

Glad you are not in charge  but once again  what about the Right of
society???

If it differs from what YOU want is it still valid???
Why have so many states voted to legalize medical use????

Same for what YOU think laws should be
Your Hypocrisy is making me nauseous  excuse me while I deliver unto the
toilet that which is the toilet's.

And Hypocrite extraordinair
Especially inside the brain case.

You need some Introspection.

Howm Grone J


text:
In article <[email]> Brother Nate <[email]> writes:

I'll admit that.  Legality doesn't turn dangerous substances into benign
substances.

However, it does make substances LESS dangerous because the manufacturers
and sellers will become legally liable, and because substances will be sold
in known dosages of known purity with known concentrations.  It also makes
education about the substances better and more likely to be paid heed because
one can say things with confidence about known substances that one cannot say
with any degree of confidence about unknown substances sold on the black
market.

No argument, eh, Nathan?  So you indeed equate "carelessly" and "as toys",
no?

In other words, you have no objection to people treating alcohol as a
recreational substance if they do so responsibly?

Why do you not feel the same way about other drugs that just happen to be
illegal at the moment?  Why the hypocrisy?

"Sympathy"?  What a strange choice of words in this context.

And you are admitting that you only approve of religions that agree with
your concept of "God".

How do you know God wants respect?  Maybe it has no wants or desires at all?
Maybe it only wants us to respect each other?

Nathan, talking about what laws "should" be is part of the process and
procedures necessary to enact change.

One cannot cause change if one is not willing to talk about the change
desired.

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

"Small is beautiful."


text:
In article <[email]> Brother Nate <[email]> writes:

If the 13-year-old has abdominal cancer and is in pain, then heroin might be
the correct pain treatment.

Other than that, I think it should be up to the parents of that 13-year-old as
to whether heroin should be available to that 13-year-old.  Personally, I
would NOT want to make heroin legal for 13-year-olds to purchase.

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

"As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it wasn't
 as easy to get programs right as we had thought.  Debugging had to be
 discovered.  I can remember the exact instant when I realized that a large
 part of my life from then on was going to be spent in finding mistakes in
 my own programs."
			-Maurice Wilkes discovers debugging, 1949


text:
Brother Nate <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Sorry, that won't work. Tort law exists to compensate
a victim of a wrong or injury.

Who is the victim when I smoke a joint?

Your hero is Barry McCaffrey?

The man is a maggot (and I'm being kind.)

There definitely isn't a shortage of people wanting to control what
drugs other people can buy and sell.

Because it would be morally wrong to do so.

Isn't it amazing that I was able to figure that out without
the help of some alphabet-soup government agency.


text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Democracy.

abuse

So. because some drunks and addicts have abused others freeedoms, its okay
to use the criminal law against all addicts. Why not prosecute every
motorist because some of them break the speed lmit.

General Macaffrey is being disengenious here, as you very well know. He does
not mean that the War on Drugs itself has outgrown its usefullness, merely
that  he no longer favours the term itself. Probably because it is easy for
ordinary non-using individuals to see it for what it is. A repressive,
socially destructive, ill concieved policy, that does far more harm than
good.

end to
whatsoever.

I would like to see all presently controlled drugs eventually available for
sale to adults, combined with intensivw education ito thier danger. That way
we can eradicate the black market, with all its disasterous fallout, and
concentrate on rebuilding our society.
   You studiously ignore that the industrial revolution was built by men and
women who were full to the gunnels with opium, and cannabis. Their society
did not collapse, it prospered. The latest discovery is the Robert
Stephenson, inventor of the Rocket steam engine which allowed the railway to
develop, was a hardcore laudanum addict. Because he could buy his opium
cheaply and legally, he could spend his days concentrating on developing
steam locomotion. Where would he be today. either in jail, on a methadone
program, or in some rehab somewhere.
   Whe are you going to take on board a very simple point? I shall attempt
to explain it yet again. Drug reformers are not pro drugs. I don't think
drugs are toys, nor do I believe their use to be a good thing. However the
use of the criminal law, by making the activity illegal CREATES more
problems than it can solve. THe only thing it can achieve is to raise the
price of the substance in question and stigmatise the user. This in turn
causes far worse fallout for society than allowing people their drugs. It is
a policy of pragmatism. wheresas yours is an ideology.

 Twice now you ignore my point about how prohibition is fundamentally
opposed to our societys principles. You sir are opposed to personal freedom,
prefering some form of controlled society. probably because you believe
people not capable of knowing what is best for them.
        I is my observation that your tactic is not to advance any debate on
drugs. Your aim is to subtly put doubt into the minds of those who lurk
here, that legalisation would be a far superior policy to dreary policed
prohibition. Ultimately you will fail, prohibition is dying the world over.
Hell 20 years ago you couldn't even talk about legalisation without people
thinking you mad. Now its mainstream political debate. All you can hope to
do is delay the inevitable, since like all reactionaries, change scares you
silly.


text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You are quoting Hiccum???
jeez dude.

All he does is spew regurgitated crap he saw on the TV.

Howm Grone J


text:
Brother Nate <[email]> wrote in news:3FB8D029.8000705
@yahoo.com:

Good question. I'd also like to see those figures.


text:
[email] (El Rayo-X) wrote in news:3fb651e7.1298094160
@News.CIS.DFN.DE:

[email],

I was referring to drugs, foods, etc... not individuals. Most, if not
all of the posters in t.p.d. support either prohibition or government
regulation, unlike myself who supports neither.


text:
Jack H. wrote:

Actually I don't believe that opium is inherently bad.
I believe that it is wrong and immature to treat drugs
carelessly as though they were playthings.  Opium only
gets the treatment it does because there are so many
people on your side who want to do just that.

It might happen someday.  As far as I'm concerned every
drug should be considered on its own merits, and while
I don't approve of any "recreational" drug use I do
have to concede that in terms of the health risks and
potential for harm, we spend a lot too much on MJ
enforcement.

Unfortunately for you you seem hell bent on insulting
and alienating most of the people of faith whose support
would be instrumental in making any change, so whatever
you think should happen gets bogged down in a mire of
your own venom.

Government enacts laws which reflect a consensus of
opinion in society.  Some of those laws are rooted in
purely secular concerns, but some are also guided by
moral and spiritual considerations.

So act like one.


text:
Manny Davis <[email]> wrote in
news:Xns9435B89DCD69Anothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6:

The state?


text:
Adamski the Rush-ian wrote:

Every motorist now lives with laws against exceeding speed
limits because of those who have done it in the past, and
the people who break those limits get stopped and ticketed.

Not so.  I heard the NPR interview from which the quote
comes, and I believe that General McCaffrey was completely
serious.

How much more "intense" do you propose our education about
the dangers of drug abuse could get?

Our society does not need to be "rebuilt".  I can see how
someone who had vanished into a drug-induced haze for the
past 20 years could make the mistake of imagining that the
state of America is no better than the state of their own
life, but most Americans are actually plodding along in
much the same way that they always have.

The only people who need to "rebuild" are those who have
allowed their drug abuse and alienation to drive them into
the gutter.

You ignore the fact that it was driven by a Protestant work
ethic.  While I would admit that there were those who used
opium and MJ during the industrial revolution, I would argue
that the IR took place in spite of their habits, not because
of them.

Along with slums, child labor, and cholera.

I believe that your reasoning on that point is simplistic
and flawed.  The fact of the matter is that there are some
things that our society prohibits, and this is in no way
contrary to principles of freedom or human dignity.

I am opposed to anarchy.

Don't hold your breath waiting for its demise.


author: MP

text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

That does not answer the question: Why not prosecute every motorist
because some of them break the speed lmit, since you favor punishing
all addicts because some of them have ignored and trampled the
freedoms of those around them.

It could stop relying on stupid lies like 'pot makes you shoot your
friends.'

Correct.

Incorrect insofar as those prohibitions go beyond defending individual
rights.

False dichotomy.


text:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:59:49 GMT, Manny Davis <[email]>
wrote:

I'm with you. I was referring to drugs, foods, reading material,
artwork, music, anything that an individual indulges themselves in or
expresses themselves with, these being activities that comprise their
conduct. I don't think that the government has the function of
regulating these things, and not only because they obviously can't,
but because it is contrary to the notion of a free society. I have in
the past advocated a licensing scheme for growing cannabis, but only
as an improvement on the present situation. I won't consider myself as
free as I deserve to be until I can grow my cannabis in my garden
right next to the tomatoes.


text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Really? People of what faith? I thought according to you that Societie's
amjority will affect the change and what the majority says is what it should
be. No sence of individual rights there.
But back to the point who are these people and what are the insults?
Hypocrite?
If I always call a shovel a shovel.

there to
my

Oh  you mean like YOU??
No thanks.

Howm Grone J


text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
okay

Not true, only those who get caught do.

for

Subjective.

And that is good????

What if they don't want to.

and

Subjective

Arguable.

Still around too.

You are going to have to explain that one better Giuliani.

I am opposed to people telling me what I should and shouldn't do.
I am dumb enough to make my own decisions.
You would think the governments of the world would want people stoned and
stupid, it would make them more complacent and less resistive.

debate on
over.

Nah  not gonna hold my breath but I will dance a jig when it happens.

Anti pot laws are Draconian and antiquated.
So much energy is wasted fighting the inevitable.

You sugjest we all give in to the way it is but i am still waiting for a
reply to my comments higher up the thread.

Batteries not included also.

Howm Grone J


text:
Brother Nate wrote:

I happen to know of someone who fits that description perfectly.

http://tinyurl.com/vclr


text:
In article <[email]> Brother Nate <[email]> writes:

Yes, but you advocate fines for simple possession -- which is equivalent
to fining everyone driving, not just those who exceed the speed limit.

Actually, the best education is when people see victims of drug abuse.
That's what normally limits the spread of crack cocaine.

And I believe that your reasoning on EVERY point is simplistic and flawed.

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

"What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity.  We are all formed
 of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly --
 that is the first law of nature."
						-Voltaire


author: Dave

text:
On 11/17/2003 8:04 AM, Brother Nate wrote:

I see the choice as one of practicality.  The present goal of The War On
Drugs is now clearly unattainable.  The inner cities are turning into
crap and most black males spend time in prison.  Why do we want to send
a casual user to prison?  This is a huge expense to society for minimal
benefit.  Ask any economist and he will say the benefit to cost ratio is
such that continued investment is not justified.  It is cheaper for
society to legalise drugs, tax sales, focus on education, and take care
of the small numbers who will become addicts and need assistence.  It is
a choice of economics and economics rules in our society.


text:
Delta Nine <[email]> wrote in news:bp9k01$lbt$1
@solaris.cc.vt.edu:

Health Costs?


author: Delta Nine

text:
Manny Davis wrote:

Busted!  Hey Nate, doesn't it suck when your own words are used against you?


text:
Brother Nate <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Every dollar not spent on stupid lies is another dollar available for
truthtelling. Also, stupid lies diffuse the truth like vapor diffuses
a laser beam's intensity.

Now will you finally answer this question: Why not prosecute every
motorist
because some of them break the speed limit? since you favor punishing
all addicts because some of them have ignored and trampled the
freedoms of those around them.


text:
"Brother Nate" <[email]> wrote in message news:bpdv20$tt7$[email]...

Remove the stupid lies and you boost the intensity of what remains. I
don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

Some addicts are innocent of "ignoring and trampling the freedoms of
those around them." Why should they be punished?