|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 230 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 202 of 230:
| 
Sep 11 03:58 UTC 2003 |
Re #200:
> Customs officers don't get any indoctrination, we get training, adn we get
> to use our own heads. Import specialist get to worry about propping up
u.s.
> corporations, All I get to do is enforce the laws at the border.
The effect of enforcing those laws is still the same, though. And it's easy
to see that the priorities are skewed to provide maximum benefit to
corporations. Hundreds of illegal immigrants get into the U.S. every day to
provide cheap labor, but try to bring too much of some grocery item across
the border and you get nailed. I expect soon bringing prescription drugs
across the border will become illegal, to prop up high U.S. drug prices, as
well.
|
scg
|
|
response 203 of 230:
|
Sep 11 04:12 UTC 2003 |
Wait a minute, so legalizing pot would be bad because extra police resources
(presumably not freed up by not having to bust non-driving pot smokers) would
be needed to bust stoned drivers, but alcohol being legal isn't bad because
alcohol is legal?
It's certainly possible to have an extremely simplistic moral code and believe
that what's illegal is wrong and what's legal is ok, but deciding what should
be legal or illegal requires a bit more thought than that.
|
bru
|
|
response 204 of 230:
|
Sep 11 12:14 UTC 2003 |
Legalizing pot would make my job easier. But while we have one legal drug
that causes thousands of deaths and injuries each year, why do you think
adding another would make things better?
If I ruled the world, anyone caught drunk driving would get a ban on driving
for life. The problem with all drugs, and I do mean ALL drugs, is that they
reduce your ability to make rational decisions. They give you an excuse when
you make a mistake. "Hey, sorry dude. I was stoned." (drunk, high, wasted...
take your pick.) You rationalize the result.
We cannot eliminate all drugs, but lets trynot to create another legal
loophole.
|
other
|
|
response 205 of 230:
|
Sep 11 13:10 UTC 2003 |
The fact that alcohol is legal not only does not legitimize it as an
excuse for breaking laws, but the trend has been strongly toward
disallowing it as an excuse in most other contexts as well. So, how does
decriminialization of moderate use of another recreational drug (one with
demonstrably far fewer adverse ill effects of moderate usage) create
loopholes?
If you ruled the world, you'd be overthrown the first time you tried to
establish a policy of any sort because you apparently do not understand
even the basic concept of logical consistency.
|
bru
|
|
response 206 of 230:
|
Sep 11 13:14 UTC 2003 |
who said law was logical? Name me a single logical government.
And I didn't say was a legitimate excuse, only that people rationalize and
use it as an excuse. I do not see the marijuana as have far fewer adverse
ill effects. You are just closing your eyes to the damage.
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 207 of 230:
|
Sep 11 13:35 UTC 2003 |
Please please PLEASE take the drug discussion out of the Spotted Grexer
item. Please? I really don't want to forget this item.
(Not that it really matters to me; I know I'll never spot a Grexer
accidently --- but I do enjoy reading about what happens in Ann Arbor.)
|
gull
|
|
response 208 of 230:
|
Sep 11 13:44 UTC 2003 |
Two points:
- Alcohol causes more economic damage than *all illegal drugs combined.*
The reason this fact does not get more attention is that alcohol is a
big business (and so is the drug war.)
- In spite of what you've seen in anti-drug ads, most studies that have
looked into the matter have found that alcohol affects judgement and
driving ability *more* than pot. Not that driving while stoned is a
good idea, but people seem more able to judge the degree to which
they're impaired while high than they do while drunk.
I'd say that if there's any potential problem here, it's the lack of a
test for THC that's equivalent to a breathalyzer test for alcohol
impairment. But I suspect one would be developed quickly if there were
demand for it.
|
jep
|
|
response 209 of 230:
|
Sep 11 13:46 UTC 2003 |
I also enjoy reading about spottings of Grexers by other Grexers,
though I rarely spot other Grexers myself, and would appreciate it if
the drug discussion could move to another item.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 210 of 230:
|
Sep 11 14:25 UTC 2003 |
(Sorry to contribute to the drug discussion, but just a note on the
anti-marijuana ads. The first one I saw depicted a young pregnant teen, and
the message was pot impairs judgement. That didn't seem to have much of a
effect on me besides irritate me no end. Alcohol's a bigger culprit I think
of judgement impairment. The next ad's message as you shouldn't have pot and
drive. Again, my reaction was if that's your argumnent to illegalize pot, then
maybe you should start with alcohol. The last ad I've seen has made a lot of
impact. It shows a boy talking about his brother who's on pot and tells us
how "he never dropped out of school, he never got into fights, he never had
an accident" and then shows his brother stoned on a couch in the basement,
and the boy ending with "in fact, he never did anything". I think if there's
a message that needs to go out more about pot than "impairing judgement" and
"dangers of pot and driving", it's this one. Pot may be a great entertainment
drug, and I have no objection to it being used that way. But, too many people
tend to rely on it for a "pick-me-up" and it's this type of use that needs
to be targetted, and people should be made aware of the effects of continuous
pot use, molre than the momentary impairment of judgement and car accidents.)
You may now go back to the regular item.
|
slynne
|
|
response 211 of 230:
|
Sep 11 14:43 UTC 2003 |
Here is a message to all the folks who come here and say things
like: "Please take this to another item people" "This is the blah blah
item not the drug item, please make another item for your drift"
It will never happen. If you ever find that drift in an item is
bothering you and you want to move the discussion to another item, YOU
have to create the other item and then *maybe* the dicussion will move.
So, I have created an item for the drug discussion. Let's move it.
Thanks.
|
slynne
|
|
response 212 of 230:
|
Sep 11 14:44 UTC 2003 |
OH yeah, it is item:214
|
carson
|
|
response 213 of 230:
|
Sep 11 17:13 UTC 2003 |
(I haven't been spotted in ages.) :(
|
bru
|
|
response 214 of 230:
|
Sep 11 17:49 UTC 2003 |
I got some paoint and a brush if you want to make an appointment...
|
tod
|
|
response 215 of 230:
|
Sep 12 04:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
goose
|
|
response 216 of 230:
|
Sep 12 14:54 UTC 2003 |
We'll do it again. I'll be visiting UW soon.
|
lynne
|
|
response 217 of 230:
|
Sep 12 20:52 UTC 2003 |
re 215: Eeeeeew. I need to wash out my brain now.
|
goose
|
|
response 218 of 230:
|
Sep 13 04:33 UTC 2003 |
huh?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 219 of 230:
|
Sep 13 20:01 UTC 2003 |
I think "hook up" was the key phrase.
|
goose
|
|
response 220 of 230:
|
Sep 13 23:35 UTC 2003 |
Ahhh.....
|
remmers
|
|
response 221 of 230:
|
Sep 18 12:32 UTC 2003 |
Spotted davel (semi-expectedly) at the Lighthouse Wednesday night
open mic night in Milan. He played hammered dulcimer, I played
ragtime piano.
|
goose
|
|
response 222 of 230:
|
Sep 18 13:19 UTC 2003 |
I think I spotted mdw near the WCC campus. If it was him he was in a gold
Volvo.
|
slynne
|
|
response 223 of 230:
|
Sep 18 13:29 UTC 2003 |
I love the hammered dulcimer. It it really fun to watch folks play
those.
|
remmers
|
|
response 224 of 230:
|
Sep 18 15:39 UTC 2003 |
And davel plays a pretty good hammered dulcimer. I was surprised at
the volume of sound that comes out of one of those things.
|
glenda
|
|
response 225 of 230:
|
Sep 18 23:20 UTC 2003 |
MDW does own a gold Volvo.
|
ea
|
|
response 226 of 230:
|
Sep 19 13:28 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure if this counts as a sighting, but I "spotted" polygon on
another website I read, responding to a post someone had made about the
Political Graveyard.
|