 | | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
(...) Maybe, maybe not. Never ascribe to malice what stupidity (or empire building) can adequately explain. Law enforcement types and their lobbyists, prison guards and their lobbyists, prison operating companies and their lobbyists... they all (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Curious, if true
|
|
Hi all, Today's newspaper had an interesting article about possible uses for cannabis, besides the obvious "smoke it" one; one of the many uses mentioned was paper, and as an example they mentioned the American Declaration of Independance, along (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
(...) Why be so generous? I think they are STILL dealing drugs, as are many members of most of our law enforcement agencies. My assertion is and essentially HAS TO BE correct -- how else could drugs flood our streets and prisons? Moreover, the only (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
(...) The LP mailing list received an update. I could post it if there's interest. The drug czar didn't take the bait, unfortunately, so it did generate some other coverage, but not quite the controversy that was hoped for. (If the DEA or whoever (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) No harm done! I wrote "I think" and "I hope" for a reason! :-) (...) Ah, ok. My mistake then. In my place money is understood to have correspondance with central bank reserves (USD + Gold). Now it may have changed, with the new "Strong (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
|
(...) Would you expect a drop? (...) What? Do you think that people do not realise that the War on Drugs raises the price of "drugs" on the street and that organised crime (in its many forms) benefit? I think they do. What, perhaps, they have not (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) I hate to be overly harsh -- but you have no idea what you are talking about. The corresponding amount of paper money to precious metals is by definition in U.S. federal law supposed to be .999 fine 1 oz. silver for a dollar (it is essentially (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) Yes, I do go to church on a regular basis. Of course some of my fellow congregants very vehemently deny they go to church. I happen to find that church is a pretty good description of what I go to on Sunday even though the beliefs of my (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) <Snipped> (...) You are assuming housing costs would not fluctuate in the 6 years in study, right? I mean, by the time they reach 100k the house cost a tad more... and in the meanwhile, they may have been experiencing other possible (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
|
(...) Quite recently, I saw a graph of the net private debt/savings in the US. Since the second world war, the average debt of US households had increased from roughly 0% of the household income to around 100% today. This means that on average, US (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
