Local, national groups call for end to ‘war on drugs’

Middletown Press ^ | December 04, 2002 | JOHN ZORABEDIAN

[dcwusmc]

Thanks, my FRiend... and nice to see you around!

[EBUCK]

Legal drug, kills around 200 people a year. How many has MJ killed?

EBUCK

[Houmatt]

"In February 2001 the Pew Research Center polled people on the nation's drug war. In September and again in late November and early December 2001, Peter D. Hart Research Associates surveyed people on crime and punishment for George Soros' Open Society Institute."

1) Neither I nor anyone else that I know was ever polled by these people for either poll. So how can you say the poll participants were random, when we both know you don't know?

2) As we all know, Soros is a long time advocate for drug legalization. Since we can neither assert nor deny the presence of a bias in either of the latter polls due to that reason, they are in and of themselves absolutely and completely irrelevant.

And your implying both my opinion and that of those I know is worthless compared with a silly poll is just poppycock.

[Houmatt]

You seem to be indicating that it is the job of government to regulate, criminalize, or control almost any inanimate object that could injure the user when it is used or abused. Many here disagree, wanting the government to have as little to do with our daily lives as possible.

No. What I am saying is legalizing drugs will only get more people killed. You think it is bad dealing with drunk drivers? Try someone plowing into a school bus filled with kids because they could not miss their morning dose of LSD.

What I am saying is I have had it up to here with people that are of the opinion the "war on drugs" is not winnable, so we should just surrender and give up. That is just like saying instead of trying harder to protect our borders (like by placing a military presence there), we should just give in and let everybody come completely freely (never mind the higher crime rate and the people flying planes into heavily populated buildings). Or perhaps deciding at Normandy Beach we were not going to take the Nazis, so we should throw up the white flag (of course, none of us would have been born).

That is not merely completely f*cking crazy, that is unbelievably f*cking stupid.

[realpatriot71]

score

[Houmatt]

And? So what? You think that invalidates my argument? It is only 16% of the union, so it is hardly spreading like wildfire, as dswusmc implied.

[Houmatt]

See msg #28.

[EBUCK]

B.S.

If Aspirin were illegal the fatalities would sky rocket!

Degraded quality (bath-tub production etc..) would be the leading contributor.

EBUCK

[Teacher317]

What I am saying is I have had it up to here with people that are of the opinion the "war on drugs" is not winnable, so we should just surrender and give up.

The problem is not that it is not winnable (although it isn't... you can't legislate a preference, no matter how many liberals wish we could). The problem is the extra-Constitutional methods that are being created to fight it. These will almost certainly be expanded, and eventually used in other law enforcement efforts.

[Houmatt]

B.S.

Deny it all you want. It does not alter the truth.

[Houmatt]

See msg #45.

[EBUCK]

You have posted no truth....simple conjecture backed by feeble emotional argument....

EBUCK

[Houmatt]

I do not see you proving otherwise.

[philman_36]

And?
And you shouldn't correct others about making mistakes while making a mistake yourself. I personally try to minimize that risk myself as much as possible. I've eaten crow pie a time or two and, while not "tasty", it isn't that hard to swallow down. You just lash out.
So what?
It means you're sitting in a two legged chair. Keep your feet pushing you back, don't stop leaning backwards else you'll fall and won't be able to get back up.
You think that invalidates my argument?
Somewhat. It means you don't know and it shows you think you know when you don't. BTA, your "argument" is really just a supposition.
It is only 16% of the union, so it is hardly spreading like wildfire, as dswusmc implied.
Only 16% of the States have effective laws. Federal prohibition laws covers 100% of the States.
And? So what?
Houmatt's "argument"...They are complete and utter morons. And most of America agrees.
This is as close as you get...dcwusmc...If that's the case, why are all the medical mj and decrim laws and initiatives passing?
I don't see any dswusmc making any claims about it "spreading like wildfire, yet I do see you making claims. And even if it isn't quickly spreading, why are medical mj and decrim laws and initiatives passing? Have people had enough? Remember, a slow fire destroys just as much as a fast fire 'cause it's still a fire. And a slow fire can sometimes cause a lot more damage. Think "Fire Control".
BTW, what is "most"? 51%? Majority rules? Democracy?
I know where you're at! (say that reel fast)

And, also, it's dcwusmc, not dswusmc. (get the point?) Courtesy dictates that you flag someone if you mention them, even if it is only an attempted mention. You are unable to do so, apparently, not knowing how to properly spell, or check the spelling of, his name.

[philman_36]

Otherwise, if you don't like the idea of doing jail time for drug possession, the simple answer to that is to stay away from them.
You're willing to jail someone for merely having something in their possession, and that something could be legislated as anything if it can be done with drugs!
Have you really ever stopped to think aout that?
Merely "possessing" a Bible could be considered illegal if the appropriate law were passed. It could be called "The Bible Possession Act". While it sounds like a good thing it actually isn't.

[Houmatt]

Okay. I understand you, now. You are one of those folks who enjoy taking simple, easy to comprehend ideas and turning them into incomprehensible nonsense.

I am going to say this very slowly just for you, and then I am not going to say it again:

If.

You.

Do.

Not.

Want.

To.

Go.

To.

Jail.

Do.

Not.

Have.

Drugs.

In.

Your.

Possession.

Now.

Stop.

Being.

Stupid.

And.

Shut.

Your.

F*cking.

Cakehole.

[philman_36]

Bite me.

[MrLeRoy]

1) Neither I nor anyone else that I know was ever polled by these people for either poll. So how can you say the poll participants were random, when we both know you don't know?

Random sampling is a standard part of polling; the burden of proof is on anyone who claims a pollster did not do a random sample. (And whether you or I know anyone who was polled is utterly irrelevant to that issue.)

2) As we all know, Soros is a long time advocate for drug legalization. Since we can neither assert nor deny the presence of a bias in either of the latter polls due to that reason,

The Pew poll had no connection to Soros. And since a pollster's business success depends on credibility, and thus pollsters have a clear incentive to poll objectively regardless of who commissions the poll, the burden of proff is on those who claim that sponsorship proves bias.

they are in and of themselves absolutely and completely irrelevant.

And your implying both my opinion and that of those I know is worthless compared with a silly poll is just poppycock.

Wrong, but your ignorance of basic statistics is hilarious.