SINNER wrote:
> Unless something has changed, Tobacco is legal.
>


Only after a certain age, just like prostitution in some places.

Below the age it is illegal.


> Your arguments are non-sequitor. A Business owner is there to provide
> whatever he wants to provide within the bounds of the law, you dont have
> to patronize him if he does something you dont like and he subsequently
> can decide to change or remain the same.


I know what I don't have to do, and one of those is to not patronize
establishments that have something to which I object.

The trouble with your view is, smoke is not confined to just those who
desire it.

It's like a private party, whether it is a tea party, or a swinging
orgy. Sooner or later the noise starts invading the space of those who
do not want to participate, and then the party must stop or modify itself.

Then take into consideration the health costs that everybody has to pay
because of tobacco use. Whether direct medical cost, lost wages, etc.,
or in highly-inflated insurance costs.

Don't forget the effects on those who work in such an establishment. Do
they not have a right to a clean and healthy environment, or should the
liberals just tax everybody to pay for their lung cancer costs and burial?

A smoking diner harms far more people than themselves. Nobody can get
around this fact with any kind of "freedom" spin.


--
John

No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

SINNER wrote:
> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>
>>> Free choice.
>>>
>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>> demand and
>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>
>
> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down and
> blew pot smoke in their face?


It normally starts out by some doper blowing a lie into someones ear. It
progresses to more harmful dope. Then they have no control over their
body nor their behavior.


--
John

No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

SINNER wrote:
> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>
>
>> SINNER wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>> demand and
>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>
>>>
>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>> understand?
>>
>>
>
> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...


I think you are missing the point. Maybe because you are a doper, and
don't have a clear mind?

I don't know. You tell us.

1. Doper.

2. Troll.

3. Really miss the point from no education.

4. ____________________


--
John

No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

SINNER wrote:

> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>
>> SINNER wrote:
>>
>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>
>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>
>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>> demand and
>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>
>>
>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>> understand?
>>
>
> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>

No. Some people are going to become addicted. There's lots of ways to
start and not everybody is going to manage to avoid them. Some very nice
people still get addicted and some very smart people still get addicted.
It's never their own fault. Blame the pushers. The addicts are victims.

--
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

On 2008-06-20, Fred wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>> On 2008-06-19, John F. Morse wrote:
>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>> * Mike Easter wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However, the part of your gripe which is related to government
>>>>> dictatorial interference in business - enact legistlation to force a
>>>>> provider to provide some specific access to something - is nuts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously no such law could ever happen, [...]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? What do you call the government interference in a businesses
>>>> right to permit smoking on its premises if the guy who spent his life
>>>> savings on the business and assumed all the risk wants to allow it?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like it happens everyday, at least at the state level.
>>>
>>>
>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a "business
>>> owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>
>> Free choice.
>>
> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own demand and
> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.

Sure they are. You choose to do them, and you choose to stop. They
chose to start using a drug that they knew was addictive, and when
they decide they have had enough, they are free to seek out help to
quit if they need it. Happens every day. Making it illegal hasn't
even slowed the use of ilicit drugs.

>
>>>
>>> Or provided prostitution?
>>
>> Free choice.
>>
> This is also slavery in many cases.

No, it is not. Sex slaves and prostitutes are completely different
things. A prostitute is someone that decides to sell their services
to another person. A slave doesn't have that choice. Slavery is
wrong, prostitution is just fine, IMO.

>
>>>
>>> Or even child prostitution?
>>
>> Slavery.
>>
> Yup.
>
>>>
>>> The law is designed to protect the innocent, not some business owner. He
>>> is there to sell food or beverage, and as far as I know, no law
>>> prohibits that.
>>
>> The law doesn't protect the innocent. The individual should have no
>> more rights than the individual business owner. All men were created
>> equal, but under Liberal rule, some are more equal than others...
>>
>
> Yes, the law does not protect the innocent, but that's what it is supposed
> to do. Corporations were invented to help the rich avoid responsibility
> and liability for their actions.
> The individual should have many rights. Corporations should not exist.
>

No, the law is not supposed to protect the innocent. The law (in the
US) is intended to preserve boundaries. The "innocent" are that way
by their own choice. It is their responsibility to protect
themselves. Survival of the fittest. By protecting them, we weaken
our society.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
> SINNER wrote:
>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>
>>
>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>> demand and
>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>>> understand?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
>> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>
>
> I think you are missing the point. Maybe because you are a doper, and
> don't have a clear mind?
>
> I don't know. You tell us.
>
> 1. Doper.
>
> 2. Troll.
>
> 3. Really miss the point from no education.
>
> 4. ____________________
>
>


How's that? I don't use drugs. I haven't touched pot since college.
I have a few drinks on occasion when out with friends. I have chosen
not to pollute my body or mind with that crap. Free choice. At the
same time, I believe YOU have the right to do whatever you want with
your body. You want to slowly kill yourself with crack? Have at it.
Society would be better off if we made the drugs legal, to allow the
prices to be more realistic, so that addicts wouldn't be forced to
steal when they feel the need. And if they become legal, I'll
continue to make the choice not to use them.

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

On 2008-06-20, Fred wrote:
> SINNER wrote:
>
>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>
>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>> demand and
>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>>> understand?
>>>
>>
>> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
>> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>>
>
> No. Some people are going to become addicted. There's lots of ways to
> start and not everybody is going to manage to avoid them. Some very nice
> people still get addicted and some very smart people still get addicted.
> It's never their own fault. Blame the pushers. The addicts are victims.
>

Brilliant! Why blame people for their own bad choices? Let's blame
the boogeyman!

I have lived in the city for my whole life. I have seen people
selling drugs on street corners. Even been approached by them. I
have never had one hold a gun to me and force me to buy, nor have they
ever forced me to use.

Plain and simple, addicts are not victims. They are either complete
idiots, or good people that have made very bad choices. Either way,
it is not society's responsibility to protect them from themselves.

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
> SINNER wrote:
>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>
>>>> Free choice.
>>>>
>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>> demand and
>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>
>>
>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down and
>> blew pot smoke in their face?
>
>
> It normally starts out by some doper blowing a lie into someones ear. It
> progresses to more harmful dope. Then they have no control over their
> body nor their behavior.
>
>

That's just plain ignorance. Noone makes it to age 5 these days
without knowing that drugs will kill you (even for the drugs that this
isn't true for).

A doped-up idiot telling them to try it, it's great, can only affect
them if they wanted to do it in the first place.

I don't know about you, but I don't usually choose the most spaced
out, doped up idiot in the room to help me make my life decisions.
And when I make a decision, I expect that I am the only one to be held
responsible for it. If I get drunk, and make the bad decision to get
in my car, and end up killing someone, I go to jail. Why shouldn't an
H addict be held to the same standards?


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Joe wrote:

> On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
>> SINNER wrote:
>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>
>>>
>>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>>> demand and
>>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>>>> understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
>>> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>>
>>
>> I think you are missing the point. Maybe because you are a doper, and
>> don't have a clear mind?
>>
>> I don't know. You tell us.
>>
>> 1. Doper.
>>
>> 2. Troll.
>>
>> 3. Really miss the point from no education.
>>
>> 4. ____________________
>>
>>
>
>
> How's that? I don't use drugs. I haven't touched pot since college.
> I have a few drinks on occasion when out with friends. I have chosen
> not to pollute my body or mind with that crap. Free choice. At the
> same time, I believe YOU have the right to do whatever you want with
> your body. You want to slowly kill yourself with crack? Have at it.
> Society would be better off if we made the drugs legal, to allow the
> prices to be more realistic, so that addicts wouldn't be forced to
> steal when they feel the need. And if they become legal, I'll
> continue to make the choice not to use them.
>

Can you make the choice to stop being such a troll on Usenet?

--
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
> SINNER wrote:
>> Unless something has changed, Tobacco is legal.
>>
>
>
> Only after a certain age, just like prostitution in some places.
>
> Below the age it is illegal.
>
>
>> Your arguments are non-sequitor. A Business owner is there to provide
>> whatever he wants to provide within the bounds of the law, you dont have
>> to patronize him if he does something you dont like and he subsequently
>> can decide to change or remain the same.
>
>
> I know what I don't have to do, and one of those is to not patronize
> establishments that have something to which I object.
>
> The trouble with your view is, smoke is not confined to just those who
> desire it.
>
> It's like a private party, whether it is a tea party, or a swinging
> orgy. Sooner or later the noise starts invading the space of those who
> do not want to participate, and then the party must stop or modify itself.
>
> Then take into consideration the health costs that everybody has to pay
> because of tobacco use. Whether direct medical cost, lost wages, etc.,
> or in highly-inflated insurance costs.
>
> Don't forget the effects on those who work in such an establishment. Do
> they not have a right to a clean and healthy environment, or should the
> liberals just tax everybody to pay for their lung cancer costs and burial?
>
> A smoking diner harms far more people than themselves. Nobody can get
> around this fact with any kind of "freedom" spin.

Nope, for that one they should just stick to raw facts. No published,
peer-reviewed study has ever shown any ill health effects from second
hand smoke with a relative risk of over 2.0. They have tried and
tried, then just ignored the data and made **** up out of thin air
(EPA), but it doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke just
doesn't provide any real health risks to the general population.

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

On 2008-06-21, Fred wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>> On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>>>> demand and
>>>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>>>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>>>>> understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
>>>> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you are missing the point. Maybe because you are a doper, and
>>> don't have a clear mind?
>>>
>>> I don't know. You tell us.
>>>
>>> 1. Doper.
>>>
>>> 2. Troll.
>>>
>>> 3. Really miss the point from no education.
>>>
>>> 4. ____________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> How's that? I don't use drugs. I haven't touched pot since college.
>> I have a few drinks on occasion when out with friends. I have chosen
>> not to pollute my body or mind with that crap. Free choice. At the
>> same time, I believe YOU have the right to do whatever you want with
>> your body. You want to slowly kill yourself with crack? Have at it.
>> Society would be better off if we made the drugs legal, to allow the
>> prices to be more realistic, so that addicts wouldn't be forced to
>> steal when they feel the need. And if they become legal, I'll
>> continue to make the choice not to use them.
>>
>
> Can you make the choice to stop being such a troll on Usenet?
>


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

On 2008-06-21, Fred wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>> On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>>>> demand and
>>>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>>>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>>>>> understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
>>>> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you are missing the point. Maybe because you are a doper, and
>>> don't have a clear mind?
>>>
>>> I don't know. You tell us.
>>>
>>> 1. Doper.
>>>
>>> 2. Troll.
>>>
>>> 3. Really miss the point from no education.
>>>
>>> 4. ____________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> How's that? I don't use drugs. I haven't touched pot since college.
>> I have a few drinks on occasion when out with friends. I have chosen
>> not to pollute my body or mind with that crap. Free choice. At the
>> same time, I believe YOU have the right to do whatever you want with
>> your body. You want to slowly kill yourself with crack? Have at it.
>> Society would be better off if we made the drugs legal, to allow the
>> prices to be more realistic, so that addicts wouldn't be forced to
>> steal when they feel the need. And if they become legal, I'll
>> continue to make the choice not to use them.
>>
>
> Can you make the choice to stop being such a troll on Usenet?
>

Interesting. So, someone who disagrees with you is a troll?

I was just looking through the group here. How many questions have
YOU answered for newbies?

You may not like my opinions, but just because you cannot argue your
way out of a paper bag is no reason to start throwing around names or
accusations. I neither started this thread, nor made the illogical
assertions. I just pointed out fact, and the mile-wide holes in your
closed-minded arguments...


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-20, Fred wrote:
>> SINNER wrote:
>>
>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>
>>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>>> demand and
>>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>>>
>>>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>>>> understand?
>>>>
>>> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
>>> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>>>
>> No. Some people are going to become addicted. There's lots of ways to
>> start and not everybody is going to manage to avoid them. Some very nice
>> people still get addicted and some very smart people still get addicted.
>> It's never their own fault. Blame the pushers. The addicts are victims.
>>
>
> Brilliant! Why blame people for their own bad choices? Let's blame
> the boogeyman!
>
> I have lived in the city for my whole life. I have seen people
> selling drugs on street corners. Even been approached by them. I
> have never had one hold a gun to me and force me to buy, nor have they
> ever forced me to use.
>
> Plain and simple, addicts are not victims. They are either complete
> idiots, or good people that have made very bad choices. Either way,
> it is not society's responsibility to protect them from themselves.
>



Depends on the age of the addicts.
A drug dealer sells to underage adolescents. They try them because of
peer pressure not always from free choice. So does legalizing prevent
this? I doubt it. Alcohol is legal and look how many end up with it that
shouldn't.

Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
>> SINNER wrote:
>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>
>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>> demand and
>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>
>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down and
>>> blew pot smoke in their face?
>>
>> It normally starts out by some doper blowing a lie into someones ear. It
>> progresses to more harmful dope. Then they have no control over their
>> body nor their behavior.
>>
>>
>
> That's just plain ignorance. Noone makes it to age 5 these days
> without knowing that drugs will kill you (even for the drugs that this
> isn't true for).


Teenagers and younger are taught the same about alcohol. Look at how
many it kills every year. Should not the ones selling or giving it to
them be held responsible?



>
> A doped-up idiot telling them to try it, it's great, can only affect
> them if they wanted to do it in the first place.
>
> I don't know about you, but I don't usually choose the most spaced
> out, doped up idiot in the room to help me make my life decisions.
> And when I make a decision, I expect that I am the only one to be held
> responsible for it. If I get drunk, and make the bad decision to get
> in my car, and end up killing someone, I go to jail. Why shouldn't an
> H addict be held to the same standards?
>
>

On 2008-06-21, caver1 wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>> demand and
>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>
>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down and
>>>> blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>
>>> It normally starts out by some doper blowing a lie into someones ear. It
>>> progresses to more harmful dope. Then they have no control over their
>>> body nor their behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's just plain ignorance. Noone makes it to age 5 these days
>> without knowing that drugs will kill you (even for the drugs that this
>> isn't true for).
>
>
> Teenagers and younger are taught the same about alcohol. Look at how
> many it kills every year. Should not the ones selling or giving it to
> them be held responsible?

Absolutely. And they are, whenever they are caught. Stores and
bars are hit with sting operations constantly to make sure that they
don't sell to minors.

The very fact that alcohol is treated as such a taboo for the young is
probably half the reason they binge on it, though. In europe, it is
not uncommon for kids to have a glass of wine with dinner or at a
wedding, and they have far fewer problems with teenage alcohol abuse.



--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Joe wrote:
> That's just plain ignorance. No one makes it to age 5 these days
> without knowing that drugs will kill you (even for the drugs that this
> isn't true for).

How do they "know" that? From TV? Most people by age ten
are aware that you can't believe everything you hear on TV.

--
Wes Groleau
Genealogical Lookups:
http://groleau.freeshell.org/ref/lookups.shtml

Joe wrote:
> On 2008-06-20, John F. Morse wrote:
>
>> SINNER wrote:
>>
>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> SINNER wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Fred wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would you call it if there were people who objected to a
>>>>>>>> "business owner" who allowed open sales of dope on his property?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Free choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Addictive drugs are not free choice. They build their own
>>>>>> demand and
>>>>>> addicts have no choice. They are unable to make a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So someone pushed the needle into the addicts arm or tied them down
>>>>> and blew pot smoke in their face?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They are "addictive." What part of Addictive don't you
>>>> understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They Who/What? IV Drugs? Pot? Tobacco? You arent an addict until you
>>> become addicted. The one missing the point here isnt me...
>>>
>> I think you are missing the point. Maybe because you are a doper, and
>> don't have a clear mind?
>>
>> I don't know. You tell us.
>>
>> 1. Doper.
>>
>> 2. Troll.
>>
>> 3. Really miss the point from no education.
>>
>> 4. ____________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> How's that? I don't use drugs. I haven't touched pot since college.
> I have a few drinks on occasion when out with friends. I have chosen
> not to pollute my body or mind with that crap. Free choice. At the
> same time, I believe YOU have the right to do whatever you want with
> your body. You want to slowly kill yourself with crack? Have at it.
> Society would be better off if we made the drugs legal, to allow the
> prices to be more realistic, so that addicts wouldn't be forced to
> steal when they feel the need. And if they become legal, I'll
> continue to make the choice not to use them.


I take that to be your #4? ;-)


--
John

No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

On 2008-06-21, Wes Groleau wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> That's just plain ignorance. No one makes it to age 5 these days
>> without knowing that drugs will kill you (even for the drugs that this
>> isn't true for).
>
> How do they "know" that? From TV? Most people by age ten
> are aware that you can't believe everything you hear on TV.
>

Parents, school, tv, radio, billboards.

Do the kids in your area attend school? Public schools are required
to preach "just say no" from K on. They even have big school
assemblies about the dangers of drugs.

If you can find me a kid in school that hasn't heard that drugs are
bad, I'll point you to the same kid as a prime candidate for the short
bus, and as a kid that should probably be required to wear a helmet at
all times...


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

On 2008-06-21, John F. Morse wrote:
>
> I take that to be your #4? ;-)
>
>

Sure, if #4 was "not missing the point at all"... ;-)


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X