Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[KitemanSA]

The same pattern of foolishness like, say, prohibition? Yup, sounds like you refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

It has long been my argument that Prohibition might very well work if implemented correctly.

Seems maybe you aren't a conservative after all becasue this is the same argument used by every dictator. "My "ism" isn't a failure, it just hasn't been instituted by ME! What? Don't confuse me with the histiory of failed "MYist" dictatorships, history doesn't apply cuz is hasn't had ME in it before!"

Yup, I'm sure that D is SO SMART that he can find a way around what is obviously the result of natural process.

[Diogenes]

The same pattern of foolishness like, say, prohibition? Yup, sounds like you refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

It has long been my argument that Prohibition might very well work if implemented correctly.

Seems maybe you aren't a conservative after all becasue this is the same argument used by every dictator.

No it isn't. It is simply a recognition of the fact that we use "prohibition" in society as a matter of course. That it works to suppress theft and other crimes indicates that it will work with other things which are illegal, provided support for recognizing those things as bad can be attained.

Tobacco is slowly being throttled. Watch and learn.

"My "ism" isn't a failure, it just hasn't been instituted by ME! What? Don't confuse me with the histiory of failed "MYist" dictatorships, history doesn't apply cuz is hasn't had ME in it before!"

Yup, I'm sure that D is SO SMART that he can find a way around what is obviously the result of natural process.

I realize that's what you are hearing, but it is certainly not because i'm saying such a thing. Communications seems to be far more difficult than I could have ever imagined.

Karl Popper was right.

Anyway, we know that if you don't like something, you are going to characterize it as the imposition of a Dictator. Like I said, to me libertarians have always resembled this guy.

[KitemanSA]

D,
You may want to stop posting this picture of yourself. It is not complimentary.

[ladajo]

Dude...rage against the man duuuude.

[Diogenes]

D,
You may want to stop posting this picture of yourself. It is not complimentary.

"I know you are but what am I"? Again, I would have thought you could have come up with something better than that.

[Betruger]

vile little pile of stink

[KitemanSA]

D,
You may want to stop posting this picture of yourself. It is not complimentary.

"I know you are but what am I"? Again, I would have thought you could have come up with something better than that.

The second after I posted that I thought "what do you bet that monument of maturity comes back with 'I know you are, but what am I?'" Yup, that is about your mental age group.

[Diogenes]

D,
You may want to stop posting this picture of yourself. It is not complimentary.

"I know you are but what am I"? Again, I would have thought you could have come up with something better than that.

The second after I posted that I thought "what do you bet that monument of maturity comes back with 'I know you are, but what am I?'" Yup, that is about your mental age group.

I put it in quotes to indicate that was how I interpreted YOUR response.

Let's face it. I put up a picture of Calvin ranting about being made to do something by an Adult (I regard Libertarians as little children who like to rant at adults) and you came back saying I should stop posting a picture of myself.

Your comment equates exactly to saying "I know you are but what am I?" Which is a well known childish saying. And now you are trying to flip it so that *I* am the one saying it?

Yes, this discussion has become too trivial to continue. At least Libertarian Calvin is getting a work out.

[Diogenes]

vile little pile of stink

Yes, i'm sure if someone implied that you are the ethical equivalent of a Genocidal Nazi Death Camp operator, you would find a much more mature way of responding that you are not.

[hanelyp]

I think it's worth noting that the fight against tobacco is being fought in large part on the social front, making tobacco uncool. The contest on this front must be won before prohibition will work well. With many other drugs, especially pot, this front is sorely neglected.

[williatw]

I think it's worth noting that the fight against tobacco is being fought in large part on the social front, making tobacco uncool. The contest on this front must be won before prohibition will work well. With many other drugs, especially pot, this front is sorely neglected.

Which is why I would go with legalization with strict regs on harder drugs. Education against use worked against hard liquor, most drinkers today drink beer and wine. Socially stigmatize its use as much as possible, no advertisement etc. Of course the drug traffickers no more want drug legalization than Al Capone wanted prohibition repealed. They make too much money off the current system. A cheap legal dilute substitute sold by controlled licensed providers would greatly reduce their market. And gov makes allot of money on the "war on drugs", big business for them too.

[palladin9479]

I think it's worth noting that the fight against tobacco is being fought in large part on the social front, making tobacco uncool. The contest on this front must be won before prohibition will work well. With many other drugs, especially pot, this front is sorely neglected.

This is a much better way to go about removing something from your society. Do not attempt to fight the supply side, supply always follows demand so trying to restrict supply will only result in higher prices which then further encourage more supply.

Instead work on reducing demand, reduced demand means lower prices and less overall supply. You will never get rid of it completely but you can reduce it to near insignificance.

[Diogenes]

A Brave Transition By A Minn. Soldier


Link to image if you want to see this tranny.(To big to fit without screwing up the page formatting.)

After legally changing her name, Ashley also started hormone therapy.

“Everything just seems easier now,” said Ashley.

The only part of her old life still missing is her military career.

“It’s the structure, the discipline, the training, the people,” she said.

Ashley said she’s in the process of trying to re-enlist. Her story is also becoming a source of pride in the GLBT community.

The Army's medical fitness regulations state that anyone who has undergone or attempted to change their gender is unfit for enlistment because of medical reasons.

(Story and video at link.)
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/06/0 ... n-soldier/


I can't wait to see what happens when the military has to admit people who think they are space-aliens/Napoleons/etc.

[MSimon]

I think it's worth noting that the fight against tobacco is being fought in large part on the social front, making tobacco uncool. The contest on this front must be won before prohibition will work well. With many other drugs, especially pot, this front is sorely neglected.

Not just pot. Alcohol is socially acceptable despite its statistical association with violence and the carnage it causes on our highways.

OTOH pot reduces highway carnage.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_19437417

and

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/w ... ic-deaths/

Maybe in our "infinite wisdom" we have outlawed the wrong drugs.

====

And of course we now have a precedent for government bans on "bad" foods. Or anything else that may be harmful to humans. Or defined as such. By the lawgivers.

I do not see how banning self harm can be effectively policed. Who will complain? "I'm turning myself in because I forced myself to use unapproved drugs." What a larf. Well OK. Now you need watchers. To report on the people harming themselves.

Of course some times the character of the watchers leaves a bit to be desired:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/05/law-l ... eir-miscon

There used to be a reason that crimes were generally defined as harm to others. Some one will complain. The enforcers need not be inspecting the population for infractions. We could maybe go back to the Peace Officer System instead of continuing the Enforcer System.

But of course quite a few find a police state an attractive proposition.

===

The whole system is set up to process cattle. And maximize "opportunities" for the politically connected. You can be of the herd. You can be of the herd processors. Opting out of the game is severely frowned upon.

==

Also note that the risk to the unborn that alcohol represents goes generally unremarked.

Alcohol (wine, beer, or liquor) is the leading known preventable cause of developmental and physical birth defects in the United States.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/fas.html

Now if alcohol can be legal surely pot should be as well. And if we end pot prohibition maybe we can look rationally at all drugs and their relative harms. In another generation.

[ladajo]

I think it's worth noting that the fight against tobacco is being fought in large part on the social front, making tobacco uncool. The contest on this front must be won before prohibition will work well. With many other drugs, especially pot, this front is sorely neglected.

This is a much better way to go about removing something from your society. Do not attempt to fight the supply side, supply always follows demand so trying to restrict supply will only result in higher prices which then further encourage more supply.

Instead work on reducing demand, reduced demand means lower prices and less overall supply. You will never get rid of it completely but you can reduce it to near insignificance.

And the pro-drugs coalition seems to be winning the war of opinion, with no worries to what it actually does to people (certainly not their problem now is it)...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689