 | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) The problem isn't so much that it's illegal, but that we've accepted that it's the law's job to police morality. The danger of legalizing drugs isn't the legalization itself so much as the direction our society is already going with personal (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) (URL) That's a pretty interesting discussion of lawful combatants versus al-Qaeda. Personally, I'd like for the determination of "lawfulness" of the combatants to be made by a judge or somesuch, because then it would be "official" and written (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) One might *suppose* the violence would settle, but we have no way of knowing that, much less calling that hypothetical "truth". How many Americans would you suppose could use a highly addictive drug such as cocaine "responsibly"? If cocaine (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) I invite anyone better informed to comment on this, of course: It's my understanding that Walker has committed crimes different from those committed by the other detainees. Since Walker is a citizen, for instance, he is able to commit treason (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
It's easy to put the terrorists and drug lords out of business: just legalize the stuff (and in case that sounds too Libertarian, tax it and use the money for drug education and rehabilitation! <g>). Personally, I think Bush could have inserted (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
The White House Office of Drug Control Policy has started an ad campaign in which they are attempting a clever diversion through the logical equivalent of smoke and mirrors. Their assertion is that by consuming product (cocaine) from places like (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I don't think so. Simply, the money has to come from somewhere and The People aren't going to be willing to pump 75% of their produce into such security measures. In the worst-case scenario that you seem to be imagining, the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) Uh...I know lots of folks who want it back. Heck, I want it back. This airport security is highly inconvenient. I'm hoping that technological means will be able to replace these procedural security measures in short order. It is more important (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) And totally misses the point, though the first one about standards of justice stares it in the face and still misses it. The point is whether they are being treated better or worse than American citizens accused of similar crimes would be (I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
|
I think this is one of those articles that is half truth, half B.S. -- probably written by someone with a very specific set of fears and a very specific agenda in mind. It has enough of the truth to look and feel like the truth at first blush, but I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
