 | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Are you sure about that bit? I've heard, for instance, that two glasses of red wine per week can be heart-beneficial, but that isn't the same as a correlation between alcohol consumption and benefit; there are plenty of other components in red (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Ah, the good old days! No doubt toothpaste and bubblegum and baby food would soon follow suit. 8^) Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Wow! How much do cigarettes cost? Isn't that like what it would cost to have three lit simultaneously, 24 hours per day? I suspect that they had deeper problems of which smoking and arguing were merely symptoms. It is a shame to see any family (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Indirectly, yes. Just like the whole vegetarian debate. I don't directly support animals being treated brutally, but I won't stop eating meat, either. (...) I guess it would depend on your reasoning for supporting the legalization, but I don't (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Legalization was not mentioned. The commercials were simply meant as a guilt-trip. Bruce (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Coca-Cola would return to it's original state. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) If our federal government does things that encourage terrorism (and I think it does) aren't we also supporting terrorism? I think that one of the things that we do to cause terrorism to flourish is implement policy that rewards violence. One (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) OK, so if it's a CDRW, you can just write over it. But if it's a CDR you have to eat the material cost. If you intend to repurchase the CD, can you just hang on to the copy, not accessing the data -- just storing it, and then use it again once (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Maybe you're right, Chris. I just can't get past seeing a friend's family breaking up because they were always arguing about money, when they had a combined tobacco habit of about $200/w. Sure, criminalising tobacco wouldn't have helped. It's (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Not really-- essentially you want a good mix of various products, not all of them physical. In order to graduate from being a 3rd world country, I expect they'd need other profitable areas... not just a single product like cocoa or cigars or (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) You mean like coffee and cocoa? Well they're certainly getting my support, as I start each morning with a pot of 100% Columbian-- and I sometimes have chocolate at breakfast. (...) It seems to me any distinction made between the goods we find (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) I'd say the truth is that legalization isn't associable. It might be more correct to say that if you support illegal drug use, you support terrorism, albeit inderectly. Whether or not its legalization would change the terrorist state isn't (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) You are no longer complying with fair use if you have sold the original. You should destroy it or pass it along with the original to the new owner. Bruce (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
(...) Probably from an absolute standpoint, you would be required to destroy it. I can't see that anyone would be upset if you gave it with the original. (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Copyright/Fair use question
|
|
Lately I've been lightheartedly condemning a coworker for his habit of signing CD's out of the local library, burning copies of them, and returning the originals, all without paying a cent to the copyright owner, of course. But in considering a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) I thought that Walker was charged with acting against coalition forces in Afghanistan – not involvement in the events of 11.09.01? (...) That was my understanding. (...) Given that his change of sides was so complete, I must admit it did (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) I certainly agree that taxes can get outta hand and in this case, overtaxing would defeat the point of legalizing. Bruce (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Yeah. After I sent that, I didn't like the way I'd worded it. (...) Sure! So things in general should be set up to motivate people to do good, or not motivate them at all and let their inherent goodness rise to the surface. (...) or (...) (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Or, more accurately, above the price it would be if legal. (...) People are also motivated to be 'good' when it is highly profitable. (...) That terror may well subside. Doesn't mean it won't be replaced by other kinds of 'badness'. These guys (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Not so much now, as when they were at the ~50 cdn/carton level. (I don't care, since I don't smoke) As long as it is cheaper/easier to get them legally, then most people will do so. But, I can remember seeing _lots_ of DMK packs (DuMàurier (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: left-leaning pantywaists in Britain (Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?)
|
|
(...) The UK detainees are still different from Walker. The current action in Afghanistan is a direct reaction to an attack on US soil. This Walker is alleged to have treasoned against the US, the UK detainees are just non Afghans, just like the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) My gut feel is that for a while the violence would continue as those currently in positions of power because of the current system attempted to maintain those positions. Eventually they would be unable to maintain their positions. (...) My (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) Don't forget, you can't tax it TOO high or it won't work... people will bootleg it. I hear cigs in Canada are getting to that point, people smuggle them in. (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
(...) Well, they certainly want to be freemen, one of the 22 enumerated statuses of persons in the U.S. Constitution, and that is a worthy goal. But... Patriots, as both you and the govt. call them, are probably a very misunderstood group. Many of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
(...) Hah, hah. (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
(...) Dunno, but I'm optimistic they'll win in the end - by a field goal in the dying seconds! ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) What *are* the present security measures? Are they that intrusive? And isn't it the best way to prevent weapons/bombs in planes to "kill" the will to bring 'em? By hitting *the source*? If nobody wants to take a bomb to the plane, nobody will. (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Does it pay to be a Patriot?
|
|
I've been reading a lot about supposed infringements on civil liberties lately. It doesn't require a significant search to find a site highlighting an "infringement" that most citizens are ignorant of. I find much of the subject matter to be over my (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) Not really. It would be disturbing if this were standard procedure in peace time (let's not forget "W" declared war against unknown targets). Or if it kept occurring forever, under the excuse "The war is long, and the end is unforseeble (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks at the Super Bowl
|
|
(...) I guess I'm not quite so optimistic. The fact The People have allowed tanks at a public event at all is disturbing. Of course, there have probably been situations like this before, but these security measures seem to occur more (...) (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?)
|
|
(...) It was claimed that they were "happy" - which I thought odd. (...) Concerned, but non-troubling making is how I’d describe it: Straw to quiz US on UK captives (URL) (...) That is irrelevant (even if true). But I do wonder how the next US POW's (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
|
(...) are (...) have (...) With which part of what I think is obviously the truth do you disagree? My statement breaks down into: A) The price of coke is inflated above the consumer-market value. B) People are motivated to be 'bad' when it is highly (...) (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?)
|
|
(...) Oops. Fair enough. (...) Maybe--has the UK made any effort to extradite those detainees (who have, I understand, reported that conditions in the detainment center are perfectly adequate)? That's a good question, though. What's the UK's policy (...) (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?)
|
|
(...) is alleged to have (...) alleged to have been (...) Indeed. But there are UK "detainees" in Cuba too. Could these guys not have committed treason against the UK? Could they not go on trial in the UK with real charges against them? (...) One (...) (23 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
