From: dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: spelling this stuff out clearly
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:38:38 GMT

> Larry Morris
> Bothell, WA  (206) 487-5810
> Internet:    <lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.COM>

Funny, I used to live in Bothell.

> Not everyone who find you annoying is a contemptable, drug
> crazed fool.

Well, in your case I'll have to leave out the "drug crazed";
you still demonstrate the usual t.p.d legalization proponent
inability to read, write, or think.

>> Had we known at the beginning what we know now, alcohol, tobacco, and
>> caffeine would never have been legalized in the first place.

> I guess I missed that legislation.  When did we legalize these things.  I
> didn't think they were originally illegal.  In fact, I didn't think
> our founders had a very large list of things that were illegal.

Sigh. Reading comprehension 101 for you. I don't say anywhere in there
that they were once illegal, nor is that a necessary precondition for
something being legalized. We have today a well known organization, the
FDA, whose job it is to pass as to the efficacy, wholesomeness, and
legality of most substances entering the body. Until they pass on a
drug, that drugs status is a limbo equivalent to "illegal", even though
it has never formally been outlawed. Had we known about 20,000 years
ago what we know now, we'd have instituted such an organization then,
and never made legal those substances which would prove in the interim
to have such high social cost.

That says in ten lines what you should have been able to understand from
the two I originally wrote.  Engage brain before hitting "r"eply key.

>>> Perhaps this should also apply to eggs, since cholesterol causes lots  

>> Proving only that any argument can be taken to extremes to ridicule it.

> Please provide evidence that this is an extreme.

I am not in business here to provide handholding for the comprehension
impaired. I wrote it, you read it. If you can't manage to understand a
concept that simple, if your formal debating skills are that weak, you
are just an impediment who needs to retire from the discussion.

>>> Personally, I prefer a state that doesn't need to be your parent  
>>> because it's not in the business of taking care of you.

>> You must hate college.

> Not sure I see the point.

Why am I not surprised.  Hint, but it's in Latin, not easy for the
uneducable to recall to mind:  "in loco parentis".

> I think you are utterly full of shit.

Considering how consistently your thinking skills lead you to incorrect
conclusions, I'll accept that as high praise.

> Have you checked how many of your precious tax dollars are being poured
> into the military complex of the U.S.? I don't suppose some of those
> dollars pay your upper 3% income?

They pay all of it, as a glance at my return address, or knowledge of my
uniform service retired status, might lead you to suspect.

> I could run one hell of a lot of hospitals on the military budget.

Hm. I could probably run about the same amount of hospitals on the
money saved toward medical and reconstruction costs by the increasingly
more accurate forecasts of tropical cyclone landfalls done with my
portion of the military budget: I write the forecast workstation
display and message sending software.

Doubt the many _benefits_ to you of the military will ever penetrate
your self indulgent awareness; freedom is rarely held valuable by those
who have enjoyed it from birth. You seem a total follower, incapable of
independent thought, and now happily jump on the politically correct
"military bashing" bandwagon that is all the vogue.

It makes no impact on your including it in your note that this is
totally unrelated to the matter being discussed, but it is a way your
enfeebled mind thinks you can "score points", so in it goes.

Drug legalization attracts a lot of your kind.  Why am I not surprised?

Another big hint: this discussion is not about scoring points; it is
about permitting or prohibiting the destruction of western civilization
by legalizing, or failing to interdict, substances with the known
potential to cause that destruction.

Next idiot, please.  This one has lost its capability to amuse, but
Barnum's law says the net will never run out of successor idiots, and
I'm still vastly amused by the lot of them, though in small quantities
per each.

Kent, the man from xanth.
"The Birthright of humankind is the stars!"
--
Ignore the header, and don't expect me to see a news reply.  We don't get news.
Use email to: <dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil> or <dolan@192.138.87.240>