Talk-Polywell.org

58% of Americans oppose pot prohibition.

Seems like a LOT of Margin there.

A lot of conservatives around here tell me ending pot prohibition is a marginal issue. I'd have to agree. So why don't they give up on it to win elections?

===============

And of course there is the recent thread where some conservatives say we need a police state to prevent a police state. The rationale is that without laws preventing bad behavior we will get bad behavior and thus people will call for a police state. So laws that require a police state are heading off a police state. I'm greatly amused.

If we judge by alcohol prohibition or pot prohibition such laws are ineffective. So we are getting conservatives promoting a police state and getting nothing in return. Well except for a black market.

Percent of Americans who have tried pot: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried ... d-80s.aspx

From alcohol prohibition we got the idea that "Baptists are the bootleggers best friend". Evidently it is still true.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f ... eggers.pdf

MSimon wrote:58% of Americans oppose pot prohibition.

Seems like a LOT of Margin there.

A lot of conservatives around here tell me ending pot prohibition is a marginal issue. I'd have to agree. So why don't they give up on it to win elections?

===============

And of course there is the recent thread where some conservatives say we need a police state to prevent a police state. The rationale is that without laws preventing bad behavior we will get bad behavior and thus people will call for a police state. So laws that require a police state are heading off a police state. I'm greatly amused.

This is why people don't bother fooling with you in these discussions. You simply "straw man" anything anyone says into something ridiculous.


Of course the reasons you do this is obvious. Accuracy is not your friend.

Prohibiting products that are detriments to society is a police state?

Granted, police state tactics have been used in the name of drug prohibition, but the measures used for enforcement is a separate debate from whether those drugs should be prohibited.

On top of which, I expect for a great many of those supporting "drug legalization":
- drugs are not a deciding political issue.
- it's not the prohibition as much as the tactics they see used for enforcement.

hanelyp wrote:Prohibiting products that are detriments to society is a police state?

Any prohibition against any kind of behavior a drug addict like simon is involved in is judged by him as police state activity.

Drugs made him drop out of school. They got him fired from his job. they've had him living off the backs of others for 13 years. And it's all someone else's fault, don'tcha know. And in literally hundreds of threads he is purging his sickness onto others.

Where's the surprise that a drug addict won't take any responsibility?

Granted, police state tactics have been used in the name of drug prohibition, but the measures used for enforcement is a separate debate from whether those drugs should be prohibited.

What else would you expect when prohibition is seen as failing? Harsher enforcement and harsher punishment are the typical responses.

Prohibitions HAVE to lead to a police state because prohibitions are not even minimally effective without it.

GIThruster wrote:

hanelyp wrote:Prohibiting products that are detriments to society is a police state?

Any prohibition against any kind of behavior a drug addict like simon is involved in is judged by him as police state activity.

Drugs made him drop out of school. They got him fired from his job. they've had him living off the backs of others for 13 years. And it's all someone else's fault, don'tcha know. And in literally hundreds of threads he is purging his sickness onto others.

Where's the surprise that a drug addict won't take any responsibility?

Well yes. I dropped out of school. And became an aerospace engineer. Some failure.

=============

I take it you have yet to be anally probed for you opposition to the government. Be patient. Given the policies you espouse your time will come. Eventually you will be hoist by your own petard.

You keep saying that simon, but engineers have degrees. That's what makes them engineers. You're not an engineer. You're the guy they used to do piece work until they fired you because you failed the piss test.

My twin did electrical assembler work when he was 16. That doesn't make him an engineer either.

You do need to face the fact that drugs have destroyed your life and yet you continue to argue for them. All your behavior is that of an addict.

"You keep saying that simon, but engineers have degrees. That's what makes them engineers. You're not an engineer. You're the guy they used to do piece work until they fired you because you failed the piss test."

Joe the Plumber did not have the license, and yet, he did plumbing for a living--therefore he is/was a plumber.

And my recollection of MSimon's history is that he never failed a drug test--he refused to take one...

...I don't think you're even slightly careful of the truth, GIThruster, but I believe it's congenital on your part. I don't hold it against you.

I suspect strongly that MSimon has done more engineering in any given decade than you will in your lifetime.

If he turns out to play a serious, one of a handful role in the Polywell being successful, he will have done more positive work for humanity than any but a few hundred people in history. And there's no trace of addiction in him, no steep or continuous downward spiral.

There's more of that evident in your infantile dysfunction, your inability to generalize what human nature is apart from the particularities of your own narrow experience.

And my recollection of MSimon's history is that he never failed a drug test--he refused to take one...

Correct. I have a physical dysfunction. The medical term is avoidant paruresis. I can't piss on command. First noticed at age 5 when a doctor asked for a sample and I had to take the container home. That was about 65 years ago. Long before drug prohibition required piss as a job qualification. It truly amazes me what people will do on government demand. I don't blame anyone who does it. It has been a hard scrabble for me. What is amazing is that so few even protest such depredations. And some - with glee - support them. It must take a lot of hate for "them" to support such a requirement. Dr. Strangelove has come true. POE - Purity Of Essence is now a job requirement.

As to the rest - I was just lucky to be out of a job when Polywell required some PR. Tom Ligon was kind enough to teach me so I could teach others. I was posting about 5 to 10 comments a day around the www on any site discussing nuclear power or fusion. Each comment tailored to the particular post. Dr. B's Google video was the link I left at the beginning. Until I began a blog for the purpose of education. Haven't posted on that blog in several years. Haven't needed to.

I might add that Dr. B thanked me personally. Along with a co-blogger at Classical Values (CV) - Tall Dave. He was invited to post there after Polywell was funded. He got invited to CV because of his libertarian views. Dave still posts here occasionally. Dr. B said that we were instrumental in getting Polywell refunded.

Dave posts rarely these days because he has started a family and it keeps him busy.

TDPerk wrote:And there's no trace of addiction in him, no steep or continuous downward spiral.

Anyone who wants their drugs more than they want a job is an addict in my book. The reason simon has not worked for a decade and a half is he's an addict.

GIThruster wrote:

TDPerk wrote:And there's no trace of addiction in him, no steep or continuous downward spiral.

Anyone who wants their drugs more than they want a job is an addict in my book. The reason simon has not worked for a decade and a half is he's an addict.

Well thank you. Fortunately your book is losing pages. More every day.

My goal is to engineer more wins for socialists and then a complete collapse of civilization. Why? The usual reason. Out of spite.

MSimon wrote:My goal is to engineer more wins for socialists and then a complete collapse of civilization. Why? The usual reason. Out of spite.

That positions you with the enemy, your arguments to be regarded somewhere between unreliable and a reverse barometer. And heaven help you when the Burning comes.

hanelyp wrote:

MSimon wrote:My goal is to engineer more wins for socialists and then a complete collapse of civilization. Why? The usual reason. Out of spite.

That positions you with the enemy, your arguments to be regarded somewhere between unreliable and a reverse barometer. And heaven help you when the Burning comes.

I against ALL statists. I am an enemy of socialists everywhere. Be they moral socialists or economic socialists. You see I know my history and both have Progressive roots. The economic socialists are proud of it and the moral socialists deny it. But you see I know my history. I know how alcohol prohibition came into being.

Nothing can stop the burning at this point. My goal is to help the burners destroy each other.

In any case you are on the losing side of this question and probably on the winning side re: national health care. So if you want to fight ObamaCare I will help. As I said - my goal is to get you and them at each others throats.

Out of the burning it is my hope that we will get a fervent desire for smaller government and at least temporarily return the Progressives of all stripes to the dust bin of history. I'm sure I can count on you to do your part. Your hate insures it. As does theirs. Delicious.

Do I risk the opprobrium of both sides? Well yes. But what is life without risk? I have enjoyed risk all my life. I'm not going to stop now.

hanelyp wrote:

MSimon wrote:My goal is to engineer more wins for socialists and then a complete collapse of civilization. Why? The usual reason. Out of spite.

That positions you with the enemy, your arguments to be regarded somewhere between unreliable and a reverse barometer. And heaven help you when the Burning comes.

Why feed the delusion? Simon is telling himself that a couple insignificant blogs that each have a small handful of readers is his method to influence the world. When you read "my goal is" from him, what you ought to read next is "to invent one nutty reason after another why I don't work, live on the dole and do drugs daily. His goal is to rationalize his miserable existence. You, I and many others are paying to support him, his family and his drug habit. Helping him pretend there is some redeeming value in his nonsense doesn't help anyone.