Uncool,
Here's my opening statement playing yours:
"I knoe it all because I have been curect bufore. It simpli takes
a smartre person to understand that."
(You have got to be joking! At least it prepared me for your next
"logical" viewpoint.)
First, your writing is a little better but I still must depend on
hunches for comprehension. Secondly, I don't remember mentioning
nicotine in this thread. Thirdly, I don't remember making that
kind of argument about the drug war in this thread; the one that
I think you are maybe trying to intend to want to maybe claim
that I made. But that's just a guess because you see, there's
this problem with MY intellectual effort. LOL.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
It is not inpossible, as I have been understood before. It simply
takes more intelectual effort to decipher.
Restatement
Devestation of nicotine is greater than devistation of illegal
drugs. (summarized thought, not my own)
Suggesting, thus, that legalization means greater devistation,
and
thus only poor logic could lead to the conclusion (based on above
thought) that legalization is the right choice, unless greater
devestation was your desired goal.
So, I find poor logic behind the statement that because legal
nicotine does more damage than ilegal narcotics, narcotics too
should be legal.
This is not nessasarily an attack on legalization, just a comment
on
how nonsensical the propossed logic was.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Uncool,
>
>
>
> Could you please explain / re-write your post. I honestly can't
> figure out what you are saying. You may actually have some good
> points, but I hesitate to reply on a hunch. Your writing is
> impossible to read because your grammar and punctuation are
> almost non-existent. Also, it might help if you would stop
> repeatedly misspelling the topic on which you wish to be heard
> opining: "PROHIBITION".
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's
instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at
a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and
fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> That appears like poor logic to appose prohabition... The lack
of
>
> prohibition on nicotine products, and the far greater
devestation
> to
> peoples nicotine causes as a legal substance makes you beleive
> that,
> thus, the ilegal substances, the some of wich far more
powerfull
> than nicotine, should also be legal... because......?
>
> Not my position here, just pointing out you just gave an
argument
>
> for prohibition as your argument against it.
>
>
>
>
>
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
