DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
Judy Diarya
us-serviceman to fight the drug trade in south america!!!
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0%2C3858%2C4226092%2C00.html
The hypocrisy is that the biggest drug problem america has is alcohol;
in particular drunk drivers. These criminals kill thousands of
innocent americans each year and injure tens of thousands and cost
billions of $s in property damage and medical bills. But bush doesn't
want to go after those kind of drug criminals no matter how much death
and misery they cause. After all, he and cheney have THREE
CONVICTIONS for drunk driving between them.
valentine michael smith
and who are their biggest supporters?
Illegal drug dealers who else...
When will they ever learn?
Judy Diarya wrote in message
<13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com>...
Marksman
"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.
Judy Diarya
> Paradox: Misinformed people support the war on drugs
> and who are their biggest supporters?
> Illegal drug dealers who else...
>
> When will they ever learn?
>
when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
namely drunkdrivers?
Fifty1Ford
Really?
Looks like you have been drinking too much booze.
You freaking lush.
Drunk.
Hop Head.
Drooling alcoholic.
Three martini lunch-er.
Wife beater.
Child molester.
Glutton.
.
.
.
You idiots will never get it will you?
Nope, because you are too DRUNK to see straight let alone think straight!
LOL!
:)
Fifty1Ford.
"Marksman" <LIEberals_ar...@lieberal.bull> wrote in message
news:b9bb8.24767$zJ3.1...@typhoon.maine.rr.com...
Marksman
"Fifty1Ford" <Fifty...@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in message
news:u6qquln...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.
>
> Really?
>
> Looks like you have been drinking too much booze.
I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
> You freaking lush.
> Drunk.
> Hop Head.
> Drooling alcoholic.
> Three martini lunch-er.
You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.
>
> Wife beater.
> Child molester.
> Glutton.
> .
You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.
> .
> .
>
> You idiots will never get it will you?
You must be talking about LIEberals. No, they will never get it. They only
want free handouts and to be free from any responsibility for their actions.
Fifty1Ford
> > > Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Looks like you have been drinking too much booze.
>
> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
>
Good for you.
Temperance is a virtue.
But why do you assume that anyone who does not believe that the WOD is
something that the US should be involved in is a drug abuser?
> > You freaking lush.
> > Drunk.
> > Hop Head.
> > Drooling alcoholic.
> > Three martini lunch-er.
>
> You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.
Sorry, I am not a liberal.
Libertarian, perhaps, liberal, most defiantly not.
>
>
> >
> > Wife beater.
> > Child molester.
> > Glutton.
> > .
>
> You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.
>
I am not a liberal.
> > .
> > .
> >
> > You idiots will never get it will you?
>
> You must be talking about LIEberals. No, they will never get it. They only
> want free handouts and to be free from any responsibility for their
actions.
>
You are right they will never get it...
I hate the dirty, corrupt, socialist, "liberal" Dems almost as much as I
hate the selfish, corrupt, fascist, "conservative" Repubs.
And any way..
I was talking about the fascist's who only want government mandated
morality, handouts to corporations, and do not want to allow anyone to have
any personal responsibility in any of their actions.
>to be free from any responsibility for their actions..
I hate that..
Let the drug abusers kill themselves by OD'ing if that's what they want.
We let people drink themselves and smoke themselves to death don't we?
THAT'S personal responsibility.
Get it?
Fifty1Ford.
>
>
>
Peter H Proctor
wrote:
>I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>namely drunkdrivers?
The drug war is not about health or public safety. It is a
Culture War, pure and simple. thus, it is more akin to rooting out
witchcraft and hersy than anything else. Drunk drivers are a
well-understood part of our culture. So they get treated more
leniently.
Dr P
Ethan Straffin
"Marksman" <LIEberals_ar...@lieberal.bull> wrote:
> You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.
Visit <http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/> and get back to us.
I'm no defender of liberals, who can defend themselves. Republicrats
can and will play their superficial sniper games as the country goes to
shit. But grant me this much: one hardly needs to be a liberal to
despise Prohibition II.
Ethan
--
"It is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is
diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of
addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging
civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We
all agree on movement towards legalization, even though we may differ
on just how far." -- the editors of the National Review
(including William F. Buckley Jr.), February 12, 1996
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
I beg to differ. Culture war was originally part of it, but later on the
Drug War became a financial enterprise. It supports a
law-enforcement/beaurocratic complex that provides room for porkbarrel
projects as well as a *big* artificial tax-funded "industry" that's used to
shore up our crumbling economy.
--
Psychozohedron
Greater Daemon of Eris Discordia
DALnet #ADP
<psychoz...@countercult.org>
"Constructing A Logical Argument," from the alt.atheism FAQ:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Judy Diarya
That's BS. Murderers are well understood too, but they don't get off
with fines. I think the problem is that so many legislators and now
pres and vp are alkies and drunk drivers. And of course, most
journalists are too. Everybody in a position of power is a drunk
driver so nothing gets done about this very serious drug problem.
Judy Diarya
>
> I beg to differ. Culture war was originally part of it, but later on the
> Drug War became a financial enterprise. It supports a
> law-enforcement/beaurocratic complex that provides room for porkbarrel
> projects as well as a *big* artificial tax-funded "industry" that's used to
> shore up our crumbling economy.
Yeah, but it's not just a case of wasting money. You also have
literally millions of peopel that have gone to prison and had their
lives runined by this stupid WOD. Yet the real drug criminals, namely
the DUIs, still generally avoid prison unless they actually kill
someone.
Eric Johnson
Judy Diarya wrote:
I would say lack of alternatives and city design are mostly responsible. Most of our cities just dont lend themselves to partying.
Much less drunk driving in Manhattan than in LA.
ej
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
The casualties are an expenditure that the porkbarrelers are more than
willing to make.
DUI fuckers aren't nearly as dangerous as fatigued drivers, you know, and
they're impossible to detect or prevent. Driving simply isn't a safe
activity.
Kenneth Porter
news:u6qv7rr...@corp.supernews.com:
>> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
> Good for you.
> Temperance is a virtue.
Why? What do you mean by virtue? Do you mean the religous concept (and
thus not objective) or something else?
People who use mind-altering substances (including alcohol) do so because
they enjoy it, just like people who go hiking or people who tend a garden.
The only thing that makes one a virtue and another a vice is someone
else's esthetics.
(My favorite mind-altering substance is coffee, and I *do* enjoy it!)
--
Kenneth Porter
http://www.sewingwitch.com/ken/
Eric Johnson
Kenneth Porter wrote:
> "Fifty1Ford" <Fifty...@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in
> news:u6qv7rr...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
> > Good for you.
> > Temperance is a virtue.
>
> Why? What do you mean by virtue? Do you mean the religous concept (and
> thus not objective) or something else?
>
> People who use mind-altering substances (including alcohol) do so because
> they enjoy it, just like people who go hiking or people who tend a garden.
> The only thing that makes one a virtue and another a vice is someone
> else's esthetics.
> My favorite mind-altering substance is coffee, and I *do* enjoy it!)
>
Further, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion about the legal disposition
of these substances.
ej
Kevin Robinson
>
> Further, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion about the legal disposition
> of these substances.
>
> ej
I'm with Aristotle: Moderation in all things.
Of course, that includes moderation!
Kevin
King Pineapple
news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
> namely drunkdrivers?
You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.
Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
heroin users?
Next?
--
"I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things"-
Dan Rather
Peter H. Proctor
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Date: 15 Feb 2002 20:28:09 -0800
>d...@drproctor.com (Peter H Proctor) wrote in message
>news:<203C1A2EBE47B0A7.6B24ACCD...@lp.airnews.net>...
>> The drug war is not about health or public safety. It is a
>> Culture War, pure and simple. thus, it is more akin to rooting out
>> witchcraft and hersy than anything else. Drunk drivers are a
>> well-understood part of our culture. So they get treated more
>> leniently.
>>
>> Dr P
> That's BS. Murderers are well understood too, but they don't get off
>with fines. I think the problem is that so many legislators and now
>pres and vp are alkies and drunk drivers. And of course, most
>journalists are too. Everybody in a position of power is a drunk
>driver so nothing gets done about this very serious drug problem.
Agree. This is a correlary to drunk driving being part of our
culture. Lots of people in positions of power ( including on juries ) do
or have done it.
So it gets easily dismissed as a familiar thing, unlike whatever
mysterious and devilish activity those druggies do. MADD has
tried demonizing DUI, but have ultimately failed because people are just too
familiar with it to swallow the same kind of lies and unreasoning propaganda
that have been so successful in the War on Drugs. This doesn't mean that
reasoned debate and discourse have not worked, BTW.
Dr P
Mitchell Holman
>DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>> namely drunkdrivers?
>
>You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.
Let us all sit down "imediately" and
take spelling lessons from Craigie here.
Mitchell Holman
"That ALONE makes him imediately suspect."
King Pineapple, who is always the first to
"imediately" jump on spelling errors posted
by others. 5/19/01
Peter H. Proctor
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Yeah, but it's not just a case of wasting money. You also have
>literally millions of peopel that have gone to prison and had their
>lives runined by this stupid WOD. Yet the real drug criminals, namely
>the DUIs, still generally avoid prison unless they actually kill
>someone.
Not so simple. In Texas, you get one free ride ( a fine and
community service ). Second conviction is practically guaranteed some jail
time, third time is a felony.
But notice that you can get as drunk as you like in your own home or
if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a hoot-owl
and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only gets
interested if you endanger somebody else.
Dr P
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>> namely drunkdrivers?
>You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.
>Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
>heroin users?
Crack and opiates don't affect motor skills near as much as alcohol
does. Cocaine and similar drugs affect motor skills little if any. In
fact, at some doses they may even improve them, though this is hard to prove
because of the short half-life.
Similarly, In the typical methadone clinic, the client takes a
dose of an opiate far in excess of what you could get on the street and
then just drives off to work. Try that with alcohol.
Dr P
Mitchell Holman
>news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>> namely drunkdrivers?
>
>You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.
>
>Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
>heroin users?
Is Craig REALLY trying to compare the number
of drunk driving fatalities to crack use fatalities?
Mitchell Holman
"And a look at the FAIR masthead proves thet
they're a liberal bunch."
King Pineapple(Craig Seufert), spelling critic
of others, at least of those "thet" deserve it,
2/15/02
Eric Johnson
King Pineapple wrote:
> DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
> > when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
> > namely drunkdrivers?
>
> You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.
>
> Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
> heroin users?
>
> Next?
>
Pleaseexplain how crack or heroine users are worse than drunk drivers.
Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
While crack/heroine use at home does not.
ej
Judy Diarya
.
>
>
> DUI fuckers aren't nearly as dangerous as fatigued drivers, you know, and
> they're impossible to detect or prevent. Driving simply isn't a safe
> activity.
Yeah, and all the people that drive while playing with radio or
reading a map or too busy talking to a friend. All these things cause
a huge number of crashes but there's no way to prove that was the
cause. OTOH, the BAC is something that can be measured after the
accident.
Judy Diarya
> Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
> heroin users?
>
>
> Next?
Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
people every year. You are a loonball if ever there was one. No
wonder everyone laughs at you.
Sloppy
news:b9bb8.24767$zJ3.1...@typhoon.maine.rr.com...
>
>
Mission Impossible.
--
Sloppy,
Be good or be good at it!
Judy Diarya
>
>
> But notice that you can get as drunk as you like in your own home or
> if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a hoot-owl
> and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only gets
> interested if you endanger somebody else.
>
Cecil
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com:
But that doesn't prove causation.
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Eric Johnson <ejoh...@wish.net> wrote in message
> news:<3C6E0ADB...@wish.net>...
>> Further, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion about the legal
>> disposition of these substances.
> I'm with Aristotle: Moderation in all things. Of course, that includes
> moderation!
You sure it was Aristotle? I've seen this quote attributed to what seems
like every significant historical figure people can think of.
I'm just curious, not attacking.
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2002.02.16.01....@countercult.org>... .
So what does that mean, exactly? You can prosecute drunk drivers, but
does it actually help? It seems to me that we should be looking for a
better transit solution than that. If driving is incredibly dangerous,
and it is, then perhaps we could look into something like mag-lev trains
to replace major interstate arteries. Don't jump on that, it was just a
suggestion from the top of my head.
Psychozohedron
the mercurial digital tempest:
> In article <13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com>
In West Virginia, where I live, alcohol is probably our biggest drug
problem, followed closely by tobacco. Jail time and license suspension is
mandatory here for DUI, though you can sometimes beat it at the hearing:
first offense is 24 hours to 6 months, $100-$500 fine, and 6 months of
license suspension followed by a Safety & Treatment program. Second offense
is 6 months to a year, $1,000 to $3000 fine, and ten-year license revocation
followed by Safety & Treatment program. Third offense is 1-3 years
penitentiary, $3000-$5000, and a lifetime revocation of license... and
here's the funny part. In spite of all that, when I read the daily report in
the paper, most of the incidents, if not all, are DUIs - often second or
third offense. The only problems that are worse in this state are
underage consumption or a combination of the two: underage DUI.
I think this helps illustrate my point about driving intoxicated, which
is that the risk of driving at all is a bigger problem than we can
address with tougher laws or educational programs. What is needed here is
a re-evaluation and re-engineering of the national transportation system.
It's just like prohibition, in that regard. Prohibition is a surface
solution to a deeper and more complex problem.
Peter H. Proctor
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H. Proctor) wrote in message
>news:<05F9CC543701FEF9.0C2B8336...@lp.airnews.net>...
>>
>>
>> But notice that you can get as drunk as you like in your own home or
>> if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a hoot-owl
>> and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only gets
>> interested if you endanger somebody else.
>>
>So?? That's the way it should be.
My point is that this is also the way it should be for "other" drugs.
Dr P
Mitchell Holman
Don't expect Pineapple to answer this
one. If history is any guide he will run away
with his tail between his legs like he always
does.
Judy Diarya
I know what you mean. If you are DUI and cause an accident you are in
trouble even though your drunkeness may have had nothing to do with
the accident. In a way it's not fair, but what else can they do?
Judy Diarya
> > Yeah, and all the people that drive while playing with radio or reading
> > a map or too busy talking to a friend. All these things cause a huge
> > number of crashes but there's no way to prove that was the cause. OTOH,
> > the BAC is something that can be measured after the accident.
>
> So what does that mean, exactly? You can prosecute drunk drivers, but
> does it actually help? It seems to me that we should be looking for a
> better transit solution than that. If driving is incredibly dangerous,
> and it is, then perhaps we could look into something like mag-lev trains
> to replace major interstate arteries. Don't jump on that, it was just a
> suggestion from the top of my head.
There's lots of things we could do that are far simpler. We can make
it mandatory that drunk drivers (even first offenders) lose their
license for a year or so. Same thing with speeders exceeding the limit
by 20 mph or more. Also detroit should be required to make cars with
a top speed of say, 70 mph. And all these sick car commercials on TV
that glamorize speeding and reckless driving have to go. One more
thing - raise the driving age. 16 is ridiculously low. I say 18 or
maybe even 21.
Judy Diarya
>
> > home or
> > if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a
> > hoot-owl and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only
> > gets interested if you endanger somebody else.
>
> In West Virginia, where I live, alcohol is probably our biggest drug
> problem, followed closely by tobacco. Jail time and license suspension is
> mandatory here for DUI, though you can sometimes beat it at the hearing:
> first offense is 24 hours to 6 months, $100-$500 fine, and 6 months of
> license suspension followed by a Safety & Treatment program. Second offense
> is 6 months to a year, $1,000 to $3000 fine, and ten-year license revocation
> followed by Safety & Treatment program. Third offense is 1-3 years
> penitentiary, $3000-$5000, and a lifetime revocation of license... and
> here's the funny part. In spite of all that, when I read the daily report in
> the paper, most of the incidents, if not all, are DUIs - often second or
> third offense. The only problems that are worse in this state are
> underage consumption or a combination of the two: underage DUI.
>
no license. That's why some of us think the only answer is to lock
them up in prison. That would be expensive but it might pay for
itself when you consider all the medical bills and property damage
drunk drivers cause.
Judy Diarya
> >
> >Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
> >people every year. You are a loonball if ever there was one. No
> >wonder everyone laughs at you.
>
>
> Don't expect Pineapple to answer this
> one. If history is any guide he will run away
> with his tail between his legs like he always
> does.
I've noticed that. He gets real mad whenever a girl shows him up.
Woodard Springstube
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
news:<pan.2002.02.16.14.41.25.789203.30607> @countercult.org>...
Believe it or not, this is one time that a conservative (somewhere
to the right of Gengis Khan) agrees with you. My tolerance for
DUI's is nil. A few years on the rockpile would do them a lot of
good--or maybe not. I went to school with a guy who did a year
and a half in the joint for felony DUI in Oklahoma and he is still
a lush under the wheel when he's out of jail.
I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs since there is
too much money for use in corrupting the police, courts, and
political system, and because the threats to our civil liberties from
the War on Drugs are a worse problem than the drugs themselves.
But, change the law so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility
for any crimes that they may commit while under the influence of either
drugs or booze. Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or
booze an aggravating factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody
causes a fatality while driving under the influence of either drugs or
booze, make that an automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence
(parole after about 30 years in the joint).
Woodard
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
That's still surface solutions. I've given it some thought, and still the
best idea I can come up with is a mighty national mass transit system.
One fell swoop, y'know?
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
Changing the law is ineffective. We've already seen that. Laws are only
effective when they can be enforced, which is why prohibition has been
such a monumental failure.
Psychozohedron
the mercurial digital tempest:
> On 16 Feb 2002 21:15:42 -0800 utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote:
That is remarkably similar to my own view, and I'm anything but
conservative. However, I must add that if we adopt measures similar to
these, then guns should be covered as well. How about total loss of
firearms priveledges for involvement with firearms violence?
Sloppy
>
> They [liberals] only want free handouts and to be free from any
> responsibility for their actions.
You tell'em!! Those privileges are reserved exclusively for bureaucrats
and incumbents.
King Pineapple
news:15C2815D47457E73.FC37E7D0...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> >Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
> >heroin users?
>
> Crack and opiates don't affect motor skills near as much as
alcohol
> does. Cocaine and similar drugs affect motor skills little if any. In
> fact, at some doses they may even improve them, though this is hard to
prove
> because of the short half-life.
>
> Similarly, In the typical methadone clinic, the client takes a
> dose of an opiate far in excess of what you could get on the street and
> then just drives off to work. Try that with alcohol.
That's now what I was getting at. How many drunk drivers rob and kill people
to get money to support their habits?
Next?
King Pineapple
news:3C6E94B9...@wish.net...
>
> Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
> While crack/heroine use at home does not.
What about all the robberies and murders committed by those attempting to
steal money to support their habits? Or gangland executions as a result of
drug deals gone bad? Tell us about the sheer atmosphere of violence in
places that PRODUCE heroin and cocaine. Like Colombia and Afghanistan.
Next?
King Pineapple
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
> Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
> people every year.
So do hard drugs.
>You are a loonball if ever there was one. No wonder everyone laughs at
you.
No, only the Dems laugh at me. Desperately.
Next?
--
King Pineapple
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
>
When did that happen?
Next?
Peter H. Proctor
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Yeah, so many of these DUIs just keep driving drunk, even if they have
>no license. That's why some of us think the only answer is to lock
>them up in prison. That would be expensive but it might pay for
>itself when you consider all the medical bills and property damage
>drunk drivers cause.
A modest suggestion--- Why not just hang 'em up, if you really want
to stop repeats? Seriously, this gets into questions of equity-- DUI per
se endangers people by increasing the probability of an accident, but so do
other things. That SOB who just cut me off ought to _hang_.
Where do you draw the line--- no driving after a fight with your wife,
lack of sleep, etc.. As others have noted, at least at lower blood alcohol
levels, the main difference is that you can detect alcohol.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Woodard Springstube <springstKI...@jump.net>
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs.....
>But, change the law so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility
>for any crimes that they may commit while under the influence of either
>drugs or booze. Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or
>booze an aggravating factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody
>causes a fatality while driving under the influence of either drugs or
>booze, make that an automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence
>(parole after about 30 years in the joint).
This is pretty much the case here in Texas already Except fo the
Legalize drugs part, naturally<G>. It's called intoxicated manslaughter,
qualifies as murder 2, and it ain't no joke. BTW, Murder 1 requires
intent and is a rather special type of charge that you don't want to dilute by
bringing in other issues.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org>
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>That is remarkably similar to my own view, and I'm anything but
>conservative. However, I must add that if we adopt measures similar to
>these, then guns should be covered as well. How about total loss of
>firearms priveledges for involvement with firearms violence?
This is the law already. Felons cannot possess firearms and essentially all
crimes involving firearms violence are felonies.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>DNC Shaman "Peter H. Proctor" <ppro...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
>news:15C2815D47457E73.FC37E7D0...@lp.airnews.net...
>> Similarly, In the typical methadone clinic, the client takes a
>> dose of an opiate far in excess of what you could get on the street and
>> then just drives off to work. Try that with alcohol.
>That's not what I was getting at. How many drunk drivers rob and kill people
>to get money to support their habits?
>Next?
How many people on methadone maintenance rob and kill people to
support their habits. Few if any.... Similarly, there is little if
any crime associated with really addictive but legal drugs like nicotine and
alcohol.
The crime associated with drug prohibition is purely a product of
drug prohibition. If crime is your objection, you out to be over here with
us decriminalizers.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Proud Algore Voter"Eric Johnson" <ejoh...@wish.net> wrote in message
>news:3C6E94B9...@wish.net...
>> Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
>> While crack/heroine use at home does not.
>What about all the robberies and murders committed by those attempting to
>steal money to support their habits? Or gangland executions as a result of
>drug deals gone bad? Tell us about the sheer atmosphere of violence in
>places that PRODUCE heroin and cocaine. Like Colombia and Afghanistan.
Products of drug prohibition pure and simple. Alcohol prohibition
produced the same things, which disappeared after prohibition was repealed.
I question whether crime per se is really your issue or just an excuse. The
solution to drug crime is readily apparent-- legalization.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Republican Plant "Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
>> Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
>> people every year.
>So do hard drugs.
About 6-8 K. Compared to 400K + from tobacco and alcohol.
>>You are a loonball if ever there was one. No wonder everyone laughs at
>you.
>No, only the Dems laugh at me. Desperately.
The real intellectual support for decriminalization these days is
from right-wing think-tanks like the Hoover institute and from the
libertarians. Viewed in historical perspecitve, the WOD is just one more
failed progressive program like alcohol prohibition and the War on Poverty.
Imagine seriously believing that human nature can be changed by
government action. I bet you you would believe in "new Soviet Man " too.
Dr P
Judy Diarya
> >>
> > Yeah, so many of these DUIs just keep driving drunk, even if they have
> > no license. That's why some of us think the only answer is to lock
> > them up in prison. That would be expensive but it might pay for
> > itself when you consider all the medical bills and property damage
> > drunk drivers cause.
> >
> Believe it or not, this is one time that a conservative (somewhere
> to the right of Gengis Khan) agrees with you. My tolerance for
> DUI's is nil. A few years on the rockpile would do them a lot of
> good--or maybe not. I went to school with a guy who did a year
> and a half in the joint for felony DUI in Oklahoma and he is still
> a lush under the wheel when he's out of jail.
Anyone convicted of felony DUI should lose driving priviliges forever,
though, in many cases they still keep on driving.
>
Judy Diarya
>
>
> > I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs since there is too
> > much money for use in corrupting the police, courts, and political
> > system, and because the threats to our civil liberties from the War on
> > Drugs are a worse problem than the drugs themselves. But, change the law
> > so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility for any crimes that
> > they may commit while under the influence of either drugs or booze.
> > Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or booze an aggravating
> > factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody causes a fatality
> > while driving under the influence of either drugs or booze, make that an
> > automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence (parole after about 30
> > years in the joint).
>
> That is remarkably similar to my own view, and I'm anything but
> conservative. However, I must add that if we adopt measures similar to
> these, then guns should be covered as well. How about total loss of
> firearms priveledges for involvement with firearms violence?
That's pretty much true already. Any felony conviction means permanent
los of RKBA and just about any crime involving gun violence will be
tried as a felony.
Judy Diarya
> > There's lots of things we could do that are far simpler. We can make it
> > mandatory that drunk drivers (even first offenders) lose their license
> > for a year or so. Same thing with speeders exceeding the limit by 20 mph
> > or more. Also detroit should be required to make cars with a top speed
> > of say, 70 mph. And all these sick car commercials on TV that glamorize
> > speeding and reckless driving have to go. One more thing - raise the
> > driving age. 16 is ridiculously low. I say 18 or maybe even 21.
>
> That's still surface solutions. I've given it some thought, and still the
> best idea I can come up with is a mighty national mass transit system.
> One fell swoop, y'know?
Americans will never go for that. People like the privacy and freedom
of their own car.
Cecil
You mean that your tolerance for people driving while
over a arbitrarily set BAC is nil. If the BAC is raised
or lowered by a group of politicians, then your tolerance
follows accordingly. Correct?
>A few years on the rockpile would do them a lot of
> good--or maybe not. I went to school with a guy who did a year
> and a half in the joint for felony DUI in Oklahoma and he is still
> a lush under the wheel when he's out of jail.
>
> I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs since there is
> too much money for use in corrupting the police, courts, and
> political system, and because the threats to our civil liberties from
> the War on Drugs are a worse problem than the drugs themselves.
> But, change the law so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility
> for any crimes that they may commit while under the influence of either
> drugs or booze. Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or
> booze an aggravating factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody
> causes a fatality while driving under the influence of either drugs or
> booze, make that an automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence
> (parole after about 30 years in the joint).
One problem with that is that not all drugs impair driving.
Woodard Springstube
Anytime anybody drinks enough to impair their ability to
drive, they are DUI, regardless of what the politicians
may say.
>
>>A few years on the rockpile would do them a lot of
>> good--or maybe not. I went to school with a guy who did a year
>> and a half in the joint for felony DUI in Oklahoma and he is still
>> a lush under the wheel when he's out of jail.
>>
>> I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs since there is
>> too much money for use in corrupting the police, courts, and
>> political system, and because the threats to our civil liberties from
>> the War on Drugs are a worse problem than the drugs themselves.
>> But, change the law so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility
>> for any crimes that they may commit while under the influence of either
>> drugs or booze. Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or
>> booze an aggravating factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody
>> causes a fatality while driving under the influence of either drugs or
>> booze, make that an automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence
>> (parole after about 30 years in the joint).
>
> One problem with that is that not all drugs impair driving.
Looks like you are defending the practice of DUI and driving
while stoned. Which drugs don't impair your driving? It ain't pot.
I know; because, I smoked it in the 70's, and, unlike Teflon
Willie, I will admit that I did inhale. The problem is that the
person who is hopped up, stoned, plastered, or whatever never
believes that they are impaired. Every damned one of them
fools themselves into thinking that they are OK and able to
drive safely, even when they are so messed up that they
couldn't find their arse with both hands.
Woodard.
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
So? I said not a word about taking away the cars, just the interstate
highway system.
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2002.02.17.03....@countercult.org>...
It's not pursued as aggressively as it should be. Maybe if we funneled
the resources of what's now the DEA into it, we could get somewhere.
Woodard Springstube
Also, the best mass transit systems are in Europe, but most of the US
has a much lower population density than Europe. That is one thing
that mass transit proponents never seem to think about. Maybe within
cities, it might work, but what about the situation where the major cities
are 200-300 miles apart? I can see mass transit in urban areas, but even
there, population density can be a problem
I live in Austin, TX. At the 2000 election, voters voted down light
rail. Personally, I like the idea, but I voted against the proposal,
since I did not trust Cap Metro (CRAP Metro) to do it right. When
I can drive to my Dr. or Dentist in 10-15 minutes on a bad day, but
it takes me 45 minutes to 75 minutes to take the same trip on the
bus, then I know that the bus system is really screwed up. Population
density, in cities like Austin, Oklahoma City, Dallas-Fort Worth, etc.,
is a real problem for making mass transit viable.
Woodard
Eric Johnson
King Pineapple wrote:
> Proud Algore Voter"Eric Johnson" <ejoh...@wish.net> wrote in message
> news:3C6E94B9...@wish.net...
>
> >
> > Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
> > While crack/heroine use at home does not.
>
> What about all the robberies and murders committed by those attempting to
> steal money to support their habits?
All created by your insistence that the user be a criminal and his/her drug
be prohibited.
Get rid of the laws and you get rid of the crime.
I dont see you complaining about all the crime that miserable drunks cause
trying to support their habits.
> Or gangland executions as a result of
> drug deals gone bad?
See above.
When was the last person killed during a liquor purchase?
> Tell us about the sheer atmosphere of violence in
> places that PRODUCE heroin and cocaine.
Where WE are fighting a war like in vietnam which is nono of our business.
Alllow our farmers and pharmaceutical compainies to prode and sell,
then the problem in Colombia will return to the civil war that it is.
Also, afghanistan is corrupted by civil war, and we are supporting the side
which grow most of the opium.
Put that in your fortified wine bottle and guzzle it.
> Like Colombia and Afghanistan.
>
> Next?
Yes, what is next in your crusade? How much of the constitution are you
willing to sacrifice? All of it? Just because you are bothered that I might
have some fun?
>
>
> "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things"-
>
> Dan Rather, as exemplified by King Pineapple.
Mitchell Holman
Careful - if you prove Pineapple wrong he gets
upset and puts you in his killfile. The online equivalent
of running away with his tail between his legs.
Mitchell Holman
"Look, Zippy, I myself am a liberal"
King Pineapple (Craig Seufert), with a
kneeslapper that will enlighten everyone
familiar with his posts, 2/15/02
Psychozohedron
the mercurial digital tempest:
> In article <pan.2002.02.17.03....@countercult.org>
I'm thinking of a broader application and a heavier enforcement focus.
Felons only bothers me, but I'm not entirely sure what the alternative
would be. My gut tells me that anyone involved even indirectly in the
causation of an act of gun violence should at least have the priveledge
restricted, but you run into nasty slippery slope issues when that's
advocated.
Eric Johnson
King Pineapple wrote:
> Republican Plant "Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > I've noticed that. He gets real mad whenever a girl shows him up.
>
> When did that happen?
Every time (if ever) you have been laid.
>
>
> Next?
>
> "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things"-
>
Psychozohedron
the mercurial digital tempest:
> In article <VbNb8.16960$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Speaking from personal experience and observation, a substantial part of
the "crimes" committed by users to support the habit involve simply
metamorphosing into dealers instead of mere users. Most users I knew -
and know - have legitimate jobs.
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> Proud Algore Voter"Eric Johnson" <ejoh...@wish.net> wrote in message
> news:3C6E94B9...@wish.net...
>> Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
>> While crack/heroine use at home does not.
> What about all the robberies and murders committed by those attempting
> to steal money to support their habits? Or gangland executions as a
> result of drug deals gone bad? Tell us about the sheer atmosphere of
> violence in places that PRODUCE heroin and cocaine. Like Colombia and
> Afghanistan.
Products of prohibition and over-exaggerated anyway.
Next?
Cecil
>>Cecil <cecil...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Woodard Springstube <springstKI...@jump.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> Believe it or not, this is one time that a conservative (somewhere
>>> to the right of Gengis Khan) agrees with you.
>>>
>>>My tolerance for DUI's is nil.
>>
>> You mean that your tolerance for people driving while
>> over a arbitrarily set BAC is nil. If the BAC is raised
>> or lowered by a group of politicians, then your tolerance follows
>> accordingly. Correct?
>
> Anytime anybody drinks enough to impair their ability to
> drive, they are DUI, regardless of what the politicians
> may say.
Fair enough.
Many people, especially women and young adults who do
not drink regularly, can become impaired after just
one or two shots. Would you agree with that statement?
>>>A few years on the rockpile would do them a lot of
>>> good--or maybe not. I went to school with a guy who did a year
>>> and a half in the joint for felony DUI in Oklahoma and he is still
>>> a lush under the wheel when he's out of jail.
>>>
>>> I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs since there is
>>> too much money for use in corrupting the police, courts, and
>>> political system, and because the threats to our civil liberties from
>>> the War on Drugs are a worse problem than the drugs themselves.
>>> But, change the law so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility
>>> for any crimes that they may commit while under the influence of either
>>> drugs or booze. Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or
>>> booze an aggravating factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody
>>> causes a fatality while driving under the influence of either drugs or
>>> booze, make that an automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence
>>> (parole after about 30 years in the joint).
>>
>> One problem with that is that not all drugs impair driving.
>
> Looks like you are defending the practice of DUI and driving
> while stoned.
No. People should not drive while when they are in a particular
state of mind that may adversly affect their driving skills.
>Which drugs don't impair your driving?
How about caffeine?
> It ain't pot.
> I know; because, I smoked it in the 70's, and, unlike Teflon
> Willie, I will admit that I did inhale. The problem is that the
> person who is hopped up, stoned, plastered, or whatever never
> believes that they are impaired.
If that were true no one who is drunk would ever call
a cab, or ask a friend for a ride home, rather than get
behind the wheel and drive for themselves. Yet they do.
I, personally, do it quite often.
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Woodard Springstube <springstKI...@jump.net>
>Anytime anybody drinks enough to impair their ability to
>drive, they are DUI, regardless of what the politicians
>may say.
Great sentiment. First, what do you mean by "impair" ?" Not getting
enough sleep, etc. can impair driving. Another problem is that many persons
are not impaired at blood alcohol levels that significantly impair others.
So you get into issues of punishing many innocents to get at a few guilty.
Dr P
>
Slat#s
We are very close to having a computer smart enough to drive a car better
than a human.
VW and a couple of other manufactures have been testing a system that
"locks" cars together on the highways in "trains".
That would meet most peoples objections in that it is still your own car but
it is driven by a computerised chauffeur.
At present it would only work on "Wired" highways but as I said shortly it
will be clever enough not to need the under road link.
See:
http://www.azinet.com/articles/real98.htm
One great advantage would be "self parking" - No need to leave room for door
opening -so more cars per parking lot. You get out where you want - it goes
off and parks- when ready, you call it up to come and fetch you.
Slatts
Psychozohedron
the mercurial digital tempest:
> In article <CFN373044...@news.jump.net> Woodard Springstube
It's a damn shame we don't have effective and fair performance monitoring
for drivers.
Marksman
"Sloppy" <sloppys...@spamhotsucksmail.com> wrote in message
news:u6v2h1h...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Marksman" <LIEberals_ar...@lieberal.bull> wrote in message
> news:22eb8.24832$zJ3.1...@typhoon.maine.rr.com...
> >
> > They [liberals] only want free handouts and to be free from any
> > responsibility for their actions.
>
> You tell'em!! Those privileges are reserved exclusively for bureaucrats
> and incumbents.
>
They are reserved for no one.
Pete nospam Zakel
>Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
>heroin users?
After you explain to us how cocaine and heroin users and abusers are worse
than alcohol users and abusers.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"This is Liberty Hall. You may spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Pete nospam Zakel
>news:3C6E94B9...@wish.net...
>> Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
>> While crack/heroine use at home does not.
>What about all the robberies and murders committed by those attempting to
>steal money to support their habits? Or gangland executions as a result of
>drug deals gone bad? Tell us about the sheer atmosphere of violence in
>places that PRODUCE heroin and cocaine. Like Colombia and Afghanistan.
And back in the 1920s, I seem to recall the situation with alcohol was
exactly like that -- during prohibition.
Maybe it's the prohibition that is causing these problems?
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
Give to every man the fruit of his own labor - the labor of his hand
and of his brain.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
Pete nospam Zakel
>news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
>> Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
>> people every year.
>So do hard drugs.
Alcohol *IS* a hard drug, and it kills more people every year than all other
illegal drugs combined.
And tobacco kills more people every year than all other drugs, legal or
illegal (including alcohol), combined.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"In all recorded time, not one death can be conclusively attributed to the
effects of cannabis. The same cannot be said for today's legal inebriants."
Pete nospam Zakel
>So? I said not a word about taking away the cars, just the interstate
>highway system.
Actually, I have no problems with the interstate highway system. Most of
the accidents, DUI, etc., happens on local streets, not interstates. I
think it is more important to ban cars from downtown areas and implement
good local mass transit than to implement national mass transit.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"The fact that he relies on facts -- says things that are not factual -- are
going to undermine his campaign."
-George W. Bush, New York Times, March 4, 2000
capnga...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In article <yisb8.13650$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
>>heroin users?
>
I can explain it for this dumbfuck.
The victim of a drunk driver is usually an innocent person
for the most part, the victim of a crack addict or heroin user is
usually themselves.
Psychozohedron
the mercurial digital tempest:
> In article <pan.2002.02.17.11...@countercult.org>
> psychoz...@countercult.org writes:
>>So? I said not a word about taking away the cars, just the interstate
>>highway system.
> Actually, I have no problems with the interstate highway system. Most
> of the accidents, DUI, etc., happens on local streets, not interstates.
> I think it is more important to ban cars from downtown areas and
> implement good local mass transit than to implement national mass
> transit.
I didn't know that, but I do now. At any rate, I'm very much in favor of
both.
Judy Diarya
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:28:12 -0500, Judy Diarya brought forth unto the
> mercurial digital tempest:
>
>
> > los of RKBA and just about any crime involving gun violence will be
> > tried as a felony.
>
> It's not pursued as aggressively as it should be. Maybe if we funneled
> the resources of what's now the DEA into it, we could get somewhere.
The NRA fights the govt going after felons with guns. And with some
justification since so many felonies are now BS crimes like tax
evasion or drug possession. Victimless crimes that have nothing to do
with guns or even violence.
Judy Diarya
> We are very close to having a computer smart enough to drive a car better
> than a human.
> VW and a couple of other manufactures have been testing a system that
> "locks" cars together on the highways in "trains".
> That would meet most peoples objections in that it is still your own car but
> it is driven by a computerised chauffeur.
> At present it would only work on "Wired" highways but as I said shortly it
> will be clever enough not to need the under road link.
> See:
> http://www.azinet.com/articles/real98.htm
>
> One great advantage would be "self parking" - No need to leave room for door
> opening -so more cars per parking lot. You get out where you want - it goes
> off and parks- when ready, you call it up to come and fetch you.
>
> Slatts
Dream on, pal. That's a long ways off!!! What could happen shortly
is installing a GPS in every car which would be used to catch
speeders. I like that idea. It would also help catch hit and run
drivers.
Judy Diarya
> And back in the 1920s, I seem to recall the situation with alcohol was
> exactly like that -- during prohibition.
>
> Maybe it's the prohibition that is causing these problems?
>
> -Pete Zakel
> (p...@seeheader.nospam)
>
heroin is that alcohol is so easy to make. That's why bans on alcohol
are pointless while bans on, say heroin, have at least a chance of
working. Though they haven't worked very well so far.
Psychozohedron
mercurial digital tempest:
> px...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote in message
> news:<3c72db07$1...@news.cadence.com>...
>> And back in the 1920s, I seem to recall the situation with alcohol was
>> exactly like that -- during prohibition.
>> Maybe it's the prohibition that is causing these problems?
> One big difference between alcohol and the other drugs like coke and
> heroin is that alcohol is so easy to make. That's why bans on alcohol
> are pointless while bans on, say heroin, have at least a chance of
> working. Though they haven't worked very well so far.
If it's not easy to make, it's easy to smuggle.
Peter H. Proctor
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>One big difference between alcohol and the other drugs like coke and
>heroin is that alcohol is so easy to make. That's why bans on alcohol
>are pointless while bans on, say heroin, have at least a chance of
>working. Though they haven't worked very well so far.
Alcohol at least takes fermentation, suger, etc. During
prohibition, the gummit kept an eye on people buying large amounts of suger.
Opiates such a morphine, cocaine, etc. are useful right out of the plant.
Dr P
brian bennett
believe it or not, a few years ago, the dea launched a huge campaign to stop the
sales of decorative dried poppy heads in craft stores across the u.s. the poppy
heads favored by decorators were from opium poppies and contained viable seeds.
until that campaign you could actually buy the seeds in your local stores.
seeds grow in dirt -- it is even more senseless to ban the the fruits of the
earth. there is no chance in hell that a ban on the natural flora and fauna of
earth can ever be successful.
there is one simple reason why bans on intoxicants will never work: humans are
biologically hard wired to seek pleasure.
b
--
if you need to control something, control yourself!
marijuana please
'cause alcohol is toxic
no puke, no blackouts
you don't have the right to keep me healthy
Sloppy
> is installing a GPS in every car which would be used to catch
> speeders. I like that idea. It would also help catch hit and run
> drivers.
It would also let the government know exactly where every registered
car is at anytime. Who you associate with, what you do for recreation,
where you shop, when you're home or not etc...
So, how much do you think the black market'll charge to rip them out?
--
Sloppy,
Be good or be good at it!
Pete nospam Zakel
>"Fifty1Ford" <Fifty...@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in
>news:u6qv7rr...@corp.supernews.com:
>>> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
>> Temperance is a virtue.
>Why? What do you mean by virtue? Do you mean the religous concept (and
>thus not objective) or something else?
Actually, I believe temperance is a virtue. However, note that I am using
the primary meaning of "temperance", which is "moderation" (not "abstinence").
Of course, I don't feel that occasional overindulgence is necessarily bad,
either.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
Howard Hughes was able to afford the luxury of
madness, like a man who not only thinks he is
Napolean but hires an army to prove it.
- Ted Morgan
lihue
>
> In article <Xns91B6E8BB26C...@64.164.98.7> Kenneth Porter <sh...@well.com> writes:
> >"Fifty1Ford" <Fifty...@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in
> >news:u6qv7rr...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >>> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
>
> >> Temperance is a virtue.
>
> >Why? What do you mean by virtue? Do you mean the religous concept (and
> >thus not objective) or something else?
>
> Actually, I believe temperance is a virtue. However, note that I am using
> the primary meaning of "temperance", which is "moderation" (not "abstinence").
>
> Of course, I don't feel that occasional overindulgence is necessarily bad,
> either.
One needs to test limits occasionally to see if they've changed.
Judy Diarya
yes yes yes. We all know it would facilitate govt snooping. I say it
would be worth it considering all the unnecessary deaths caused by you
loon speeders. If you nuts would obey the speed limit, this privacy
threat wouldn't exist.
Woodard Springstube
> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
news:<pan.2002.02.17.11....@countercult.org>...
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:28:12 -0500, Judy Diarya brought forth unto the
>> mercurial digital tempest:
>>
>>
>> > That's pretty much true already. Any felony conviction means permanent
>> > los of RKBA and just about any crime involving gun violence will be
>> > tried as a felony.
>>
>> It's not pursued as aggressively as it should be. Maybe if we funneled
>> the resources of what's now the DEA into it, we could get somewhere.
>
> The NRA fights the govt going after felons with guns.
Wrong! The NRA has always supported stiff penalties for the
criminal misuse of firearms. The NRA has publicized the success
of Project Exile in Richmond, VA, where those arrested for felony
crimes were prosecuted for violation of federal law when they had
a gun, or even ammunition without a gun, in their possession.
What the NRA has opposed is the schemes that place excessive
burdens on the 99.5%+ of gun owners who abide by the law. We
have seen what happened in Britain, where their Olympic pistol
team has to leave the country and go to Canada to practice. And,
where every home might as well have a sign that says "Unarmed
Victims Inside." We have also seen what has happened with New
York's Sullivan Law. Only the extremely wealthy and politically
well-connected can get permits to carry in NYC. And, the law is
doing exactly what it was designed to do--disarm the ordinary
citizen. Don't you know that law was introduced by old Tim
Sullivan, who was a Tammany Hall thug rewarded for his efforts
at intimidating voters by a seat in the NY Assembly? And, the
law was originally designed to make sure that only the Tammany
Hall guys had permits, while the opposition was kept unarmed.
brian bennett
the only way such a system will be "worth it" is when the government stops
persecuting people for personal behaviors and starts abiding by the
constitution. we simply can't trust them to not abuse us.
Judy Diarya
> On 19 Feb 2002 21:20:59 -0800 utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote:
>
> > The NRA fights the govt going after felons with guns.
>
> Wrong! The NRA has always supported stiff penalties for the
> criminal misuse of firearms. The NRA has publicized the success
> of Project Exile in Richmond, VA, where those arrested for felony
> crimes were prosecuted for violation of federal law when they had
> a gun, or even ammunition without a gun, in their possession.
>
I said criminal possession. The NRA has fought against penalties for
criminal possesssion of firearms. They want the lautenberg law that
took RKBA from wife beaters repealed and they also want non-violent
felons to have RKBA.
Pete nospam Zakel
>One big difference between alcohol and the other drugs like coke and
>heroin is that alcohol is so easy to make.
Alcohol comes from growing yeast. Opium (the precursor to heroin) comes
from growing poppies. Cocaine comes from growing coca plants.
The coca plant is probably the pickiest about climate. Poppies are easier
to grow than yeast.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
"All my friends and I are crazy. That's the only thing that keeps us sane."
Woodard Springstube
> Woodard Springstube <springstKI...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:<CFN37307...@news.jump.net>...
>> On 19 Feb 2002 21:20:59 -0800 utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote:
>>
>> > The NRA fights the govt going after felons with guns.
>>
>> Wrong! The NRA has always supported stiff penalties for the
>> criminal misuse of firearms. The NRA has publicized the success
>> of Project Exile in Richmond, VA, where those arrested for felony
>> crimes were prosecuted for violation of federal law when they had
>> a gun, or even ammunition without a gun, in their possession.
>>
> I didn't say criminal misuse of firearms, my illiterate little friend.
You piece of crap! You are like every left-wing looney, goofball.
Anybody who won't allow you to think for them is obviously inferior,
or else they would recognize your innate superiority over the rest of
us and blindly follow you. Horse manure!
> I said criminal possession. The NRA has fought against penalties for
> criminal possesssion of firearms.
The NRA has raised hell for two years about why so few of the
250,000 felons who tried to buy guns were prosecuted for their
violations of Federal Law, as you would know if you got your infomation
somewhere besides HCI.
They want the lautenberg law that
> took RKBA from wife beaters repealed
That law penalizes citizens BEFORE they are convicted of any
crime. That, my totalitarian friend, is called prior restaint, and it
is like throwing somebody in jail because they might, at some
point in the future, commit a crime.
and they also want non-violent
> felons to have RKBA.
>
I have never seen that in my years of reading American Rifleman.
I think that you are making that up. In other words, I am calling
you a liar. Where is the proof?
Walter Bushell
Walter Bushell
> "Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Dream on, pal. That's a long ways off!!! What could happen shortly
> > is installing a GPS in every car which would be used to catch
> > speeders. I like that idea. It would also help catch hit and run
> > drivers.
>
> It would also let the government know exactly where every registered
> car is at anytime. Who you associate with, what you do for recreation,
> where you shop, when you're home or not etc...
___> We have this already for everyone who carries a cell phone.
Sloppy
>
> yes yes yes. We all know it would facilitate govt snooping.
yes yes yes. We all know govt benevolence knows no bounds.
> I say it would be worth it considering all the unnecessary deaths
> caused by you loon speeders.
How telling. I'm amazed that you a) know I'm a speeder and b) are
quick to let the government track me for your safety. My faith in you
is rapidly shrinking to your level of faith in me :(
> If you nuts would obey the speed limit, this privacy threat wouldn't exist.
Above all, I just don't like your slippery slope here. Because of a few
"nuts" we ALL have to surrender our privacy? No thanks. Pass me
the nuts.
Since when is GPS tracking necessary to catch speeders? I thought
this was a highly visible, public activity. Are cops so incompetent?
Besides, you never addressed the original point: that if the government
was so "kind" as to implement mandatory GPS tracking in cars, there
would be counter measures for sale before the first tire rolled off the
assembly line. In other words... those who really love speed will not be
tracked by this plan. Much like guns, only the law abiding folks will be
blinking on the government's radar screen.
lihue
Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
>
> In article <13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com> utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) writes:
>
> >One big difference between alcohol and the other drugs like coke and
> >heroin is that alcohol is so easy to make.
>
> Alcohol comes from growing
[particular plants and]
> yeast
[,as the art is actually practiced]
>. Opium (the precursor to heroin) comes from growing poppies. Cocaine
> comes from growing coca plants.
>
> The coca plant is probably the pickiest about climate. Poppies are easier
> to grow than yeast.
But poppies are much easier to grow than particular plants and
yeast, considering which makes the economic argument for alcohol
over coca more tenuous, as well.
Otherwise, *right on as usual, Mr. Zakel*.
I rather expect that, given a free market, cannibis, opium and
coca would compete with alcohol as the mood altering drug of
choice. I also expect, from what I've read in 'the literature',
that such a place would be relatively safer for its law abiding
citizens than that which we presently experience.
The world Ms. Diarya would have would be relatively more
oppressive, less innovative and less personally safe. Ms. Diarya
needs to open her eyes for her own interest and for the sake of
her descendants. Ms. Diarya needs to stop proffering propaganda
and look for less flagrantly biased sources. Ms. Diarya needs to
learn more about probability. Ms. Diarya reads like a fool
and/or a predator.
Imo. ;)
Regards,
Frank S. Honecy
--
I am serene in the knowledge that H. sapiens has never met an
ideology it couldn't corrupt.
Judy Diarya
> On 21 Feb 2002 09:38:31 -0800 utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote:
>
.
>
>> They want the lautenberg law that
> > took RKBA from wife beaters repealed
>
> That law penalizes citizens BEFORE they are convicted of any
> crime. That, my totalitarian friend, is called prior restaint, and it
> is like throwing somebody in jail because they might, at some
> point in the future, commit a crime.
So what else is new? Lots of laws do that. For example, the 1968 GCA
took away the RKBA of ALL felons, including ones convicted prior to
68.
Judy Diarya
> Judy Diarya <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > yes yes yes. We all know it would facilitate govt snooping. I say it
> > would be worth it considering all the unnecessary deaths caused by you
> > loon speeders. If you nuts would obey the speed limit, this privacy threat
> > wouldn't exist.
>
> ___> We have this already for people who carry cell phones.
I don't get it. Are you saying that drivers are using their cell
phones to report speeders?? I've heard of that and i think it's
great. The govt is not doing the snooping, other citizens are. No
worse than reporting that you saw someone molesting a kid.
Judy Diarya
>
> >
> Besides, you never addressed the original point: that if the government
> was so "kind" as to implement mandatory GPS tracking in cars, there
> would be counter measures for sale before the first tire rolled off the
> assembly line. In other words... those who really love speed will not be
> tracked by this plan. Much like guns, only the law abiding folks will be
> blinking on the government's radar screen.
Oh i'm sure there will be a market for anti-gps gadgets. The govt
should make them illegal right from the start. I hope they don't
screw things up like they did with radar detectors. They let them be
legal and now the RD industry is too big.