Since it appears to have become an issue in this exchange, I guess I should
clarify my "earlier pro drug" stance. I am not for people taking drugs. I
am for decriminalizing the taking of drugs and putting access to drugs
under state control, somewhat like access to alcohol is under state control
in Canada, though more stringently. It would put a lot of criminals out of
business.
However, it would also put a lot of other people out of business. Here I'm
thinking of people in the shantytowns of the Carribean who repackage and
tranship drugs to the US. Something else might have to be found for them,
but I have little doubt that, being resourceful, they would likely find it
themselves.
Ed
>> Please, just because the media (or the mayor) reports that druggies are
>> the ones with the guns, you choose to believe it because you're against
>> legalization of drugs?
>
>What I believe of media reports is irrelevant for this.
>Ed justified shoot-to-kill with the dangers from armed druggies
> ("A lot of the addicts have not been able to get their drugs
> since the hurricane. They are, understandably, in a state of
> high tension and, with guns, are very dangerous. Even I might
> consider shooting to kill under the circumstances."),
>so I pointed out the implications of Ed's earlier pro-drug-leg. stance.
>
>
>> the usually very poor (as in unable to afford a gun) drug addicts.
>
>Are we kidding? Hint: Drug addicts can "afford" pretty expensive drugs
>on a daily basis, so they surely can "afford" a gun... If they're poor
>they simply mug the cash, and for mugging they already have a gun
anyway...
>
>
>> Remember that the non-druggie type people who crave food and water are
>> addicts too, food and water being the first addiction, then to coffee,
>> tea, white flour products, meat, and sugar. Excepting the food and
water,
>> I fully realize you don't approve of any of these either. Those
desperate
>> enough, as these people were (and still are in many cases), are bound to
>> be rather pissed, and given the right to bear arms as another wide
spread
>> and respectable addiction, who ya gonna blame but the drug addicts for
>> shooting and looting?
>
>The comparison is ridiculous, because people can be without food for days,
>and even starving people don't lose their marbles, but drug addicts
without
>stuff get very crazy very quickly.
>
>
>> It's not the drug addicts we worry about, because they are mostly only
>> harmful to themselves, it's the ones who are suit-psychos, addicted to
>> controlling the masses, who are the problem.
>
>The suit-psychos are druggies too, they just use more expensive drugs
>like cocaine, which make them even more psychopathic. And guess what
>makes "controlling the masses" easiest? Drugged masses. All this just
>supports my anti-drug stance. In the long run, even the death penalty
>for drug dealers and total enforcement against them on all levels
>would kill MUCH less people than laisser-faire. The preventive
>approach I outlined long ago would be even better than that.
>But nobody can seriously advocate drug use or even legalization and
>at the same time whine about "psychos controlling the masses".
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
>SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the
keyword
>"igve".
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Futurework mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
Sent using cyberus.ca WebMail - http://www.cyberus.ca/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
