From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: BUSH IS A NEO_NAZI! AND A LIAR
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: hsv
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:03:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.215948.27860@infonode.ingr.com>, tj@alpine.b17a.ingr.com (T.J. Higgins) writes:
> In article <1992Sep22.183304.11560@b8.b8.ingr.com>, larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
> |> In article <1992Sep21.172810.12935@infonode.ingr.com>, tj@alpine.b17a.ingr.com (T.J. Higgins) writes:
> |> 
> |> I say that this statement is B*******, the person who chooses to be a criminal
> |> will remain that.  
> 
> First of all, it is considered bad etiquette to use profanity in 
> hsv.general.  This Usenet newgroup is gatewayed to FidoNet, where they
> have rules regarding profanity.  This is not a flame, just FYI.

Roger.  How about Rabbit Droppings?

> 
> Secondly, I disagree that people who choose to be criminals will 
> always be that.  There are many casual drug users today who are 
> technically "criminals," but would not be if the laws were changed.  
> Heck, I'd probably be a casual marijuana user if I could be sure the
> feds wouldn't take my house for trying to buy an ounce or two.

I don't have anything against the above mentioned people, perhaps the laws
against using are too harsh, I just don't think increasing the availability
is a good thing, and noone has yet given a good enough arguement to change
my views.  I believe that legalization would merely help minors get access to
the hard drugs.  I personally don't care one way or the other if pot were
legal, I don't think of it as any worse than booze, maybe not as bad.
I also think legalization would mean more people DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
And, THAT is not a victimless crime.

> 
> The things I mentioned are generally referred to as "victimless 
> crimes."  The things you refer to are not.  It's no sweat off your 
> back if I drink a beer in my home.  It's no sweat off your back if I 
> use marijuana in my home.  It's no sweat off your back if I hold a 
> friendly roulette game in my home.  It's no sweat off your back if I
> call a service and have a woman over to my home and pay her for sex. 
> It's also no sweat off the government's back; heck, they could tax
> these activities and use the money to improve the schools, roads,
> whatever.  None of these activities violates your rights, or anyone
> else's rights.

As long as you don't invite some friends over to Drink, Smoke, Pop, Spin,
Have sex, and then let them drive home too Duunk, Stoned, Hallucinating,
and Tired (No strength in the legs :-) ) to keep from killing themselfs or
someone else.

> 
> It's also no sweat off your back if I open a business which provides 
> any or all of these things.  If you do not wish to pay for the 
> products or services of such a business, that is fine.  But if others 
> do, they should be allowed to do so, since no one's rights are being 
> denied or violated.

Insert My above paragraph here also.

> 
> Gosh, you're starting to sound like a Libertarian?  Are you sure 
> you're not really Larry Hughes?  :-)
> 

I am Absolutely sure I'm not Larry Hughes (and don't scare me like that :-) )
and I am not libertarian, although, from reading the net I'm learning that I
do indead believe in some of the same ideas, not all, but some.

> |> If a law can be broken, it will be!!
> 
> If a law is wrong, it should be broken!  It's called "civil
> disobedience," and it was used quite effectively by civil rights
> activists.
> 

Well, in the Navy leadership course I attended, they said if it is important
enough to you that you are willing to accept the consequences of your action,
then by all means do it!  Personally, I don't like jail.

> -- 
> T.J. Higgins | tj@alpine.b17a.ingr.com | Intergraph Mapping | Huntsville, AL

Larry Billings
Newsgroups: hsv.general