 | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Scott Arthur
|
| | | Hmm. Your post is amazingly similar to junk mail I received today. Funny that. (...) I agree, I'm all for effective cannabis-based prescription drugs. But then many illegal drugs have a place in medicine. What is the big deal? (...) Paranoia. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) What junk mail is that? Are you getting mail from someone or some organization that you didn't sign up for, or have tried unsuccessfully to unsubscribe from? If not, it's not junk mail, since you are getting (whatever it is) at your request (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) Yes. I think it is somebody’s idea of a joke. (...) No. (...) Does your supreme court agree with that view? I hear not. (...) Even if you are correct (I do not intend to check), your initial summary was misleading. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's regrettable. It wasn't me though, you can be sure of that. You're close enough to my idea of a joke as it is without any external assistance required. (...) So you're too lazy or clueless to unsubscribe, then, but *not* too lazy to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Youch! An insult. (...) No. (...) Its content is mostly junk. I did not sign up for it. It is junk mail. QED. (...) In what way? I have a lot "priorities", I can't think of any which are directly related to LUGNET. (...) I have said it before, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) me and *many* others, I would reconsider... but for now Mladen has received a free pass from me and I no longer directly comment on what he did or did not do, said or did not say. That Amy was gracious enough to let him off the hook for it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) What do Mladen's comments about automobile components have to do with this? Dave! FUT: OT.Feeble.Puns (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What makes larry think I am too lazy to unsubscribe? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Don't you mean "ot.puns.feeble.dave...ve!.dave!" ? But thanks for steering it into the proper column. LFB (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | how to lie with statistics —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur twists reality thusly: (...) I post a lot. So any metric ought to be on a per post basis. That winnows it down significantly. Else we're saying that Johnny one post gets the nobel peace prize because his one (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: how to lie with statistics —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) My above comment stands. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: how to lie with statistics —Eric Sophie
|
| | | | | | | | | | RRRRrrrrrr.... (...) Big Whoop, and, gee thanks for Dragging my name into this for no good reason. I warn you, please do not use my name at all for any reason in this forum for purposes that advance your own pleasures. I build for the sake of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: how to lie with statistics —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Sophie writes: <snip> I stand behind what I said, (in the middle of a very involved thread) three months ago, including my analysis of what transpired when you spammed many groups. But even though I could mount a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Hmmm, no answer to this: (Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | Hmmm, no answer to this: "Does your supreme court agree with that view? I hear not." Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Interestingly, my subs has just been cancelled: ==+== You have been unsubscribed from the mailing list lp-announce by WWW form: (URL) shall miss the paranoia, I'm almost tempted to take the time to subscribe myself. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That WAS me... (URL) welcome. (...) Oh please do, as that will forever put to bed any lingering question as to whether you can call it junk or not. You couldn't before I unsubbed you of course... but now you definitely cannot. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) What is the "You're welcome" for? Are you expecting thanks? You really are an arrogant sod. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | No thank you! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well I was, but I'm not any more. I've got to stop actually taking you at your word, I really should know better. I've apologised and I'll do it again if it will help. I apologise for taking you at your word that you did not want to be on that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No thank you! —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Where did I say that I "did not want to receive the material"? You asked if I was too lazy to unsubscribe. I said "no". Can you not join the dots together? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Depends on the court we are talking about. The current court has done all kinds of crazy things with our rights. That the power of the single state is losing ground to the idea of a single nation in an era of "globalization" is hardly (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | But does your constitution not give you supreme court the right to do “all kinds of crazy things” with your rights? By the way, I was talking about this story: US outlaws 'medical' marijuana (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) There is a FLEXIBILITY built into the system. Sometimes it's a good thing in my view, sometimes it's a bad thing. My argument is less with the govt. system than the people of this country -- they often seem not to care about politics, and when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) I must confess that this has always puzzled me. Why are "states" preferable to a single state? I can certainly understand how in earlier times the limits of communications and geography necessitated the subdivision of the nation, but this no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yes, there is a benefit. One leadership at that scale cannot see the trees for the forest -- only the big problems could be dealt with, and not the smaller local ones. It is my assertion that I have no idea from here in CA what would suit the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I'll buy that, at least about certain issues. It seems to me that some states would immediately erode civil rights if given the chance and not prevented by the Fed from doing so. Yes, we always have privacy and search-and-seizure issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Smaller states == smaller tyrannies. More states == more of a marketplace of ideas. Do you want a system in which the current population of China and India can vote to nuke Scotland??? (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I want a system where countries do not want to "nuke" others and where wars are not fought via focus groups and media driven opinion polls. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) It would indeed be nice if a war-less system had *ever* existed. Obviously a world without war is preferable to a world in which war is common, but wars were fought for stupid reasons long before focus groups and media polls existed; there's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes, but aren't they in fact responsible, not for war as a concept, but for certain kinds of war, and certain ways of carrying out war? Arguably focus groups and the media had convinced successive administrations that the american populace (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) While the manner in which wars are executed is influenced by these institutions, I don't think they're responsible for the wars themselves, which is what I hoped to say. The fact that they're the current flavor of the month for influencing war (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Whoops! Hoist by my own petard. Drat. I was trying to say that the putative public opinion (which we have discovered is actually false, at least currently it seems to be) is DETRIMENTAL to the effective prosecution of war. War is messy and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Me too. We just disagree about how to get from here to there. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, Scotland. And let's take care of Luxembourg while we're at it... All right, though--I see your point. Perhaps what I'm envisioning requires greater individual responsibility and participation in the Government than is currently the case, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Right. And I take my read on what's constitutional from what the founding fathers *intended*, not from what the current supreme court says about the matter. As I've said before, many times, effectively answering the question posed. As an (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeah, but... Doesn't the Constitution also expressly empower the judicial system to interpret the law as it applies case-by-case? That seems a fairly clear indication that the founding fathers "intended" to have the justices making the exact (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, it is my understanding that the 16th Amendment has no REAL force in law -- the Supreme Court itself stated this in the case of STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916): "But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Why doesn't the Gov't legalize marijuana (et al) and simply tax it exorbitantly, like 80,000%, or something? I mean, the government *does* have the power to levy taxes, and that would seem to accomplish nominally the same thing. Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Pros: 1. Increased government income from taxes made 2. More government jobs for overseeing drug trade 3. Increased commerce (theoretically) 4. Fewer crowded prisons 5. Less court time & police time used (IE more time for other crimes) 6. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think the argument being put forth is that 80,000% is so high as to not make it profitable or even feasible to actually carry out commerce. So I'm not sure your pros and cons apply. (but maybe they do... at one dollar an ounce (an (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, I was trying to formulate a scenario in which the gov't could "allow" marijuana (or the like) but might place some dollar restriction on sales to make the legal purchase undesirable to the consumer. Not sure if it would work, except in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ah, so as to make it so ridiculous in cost that nobody would buy it and thus essentially stop drug use? I spose. In any event, I think the pros and cons still apply as to why not legalize it-- just perhaps not for the supposed plan. As for the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ah, so as to make it so ridiculous in cost that nobody would buy it and thus essentially stop drug use? I spose. In any event, I think the pros and cons still apply as to why not legalize it-- just perhaps not for the supposed plan. As for the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | David: I think a lot of that shows a poor understanding of what is actually taking place in our good country. The reasons to keep drugs (currently illicit drugs) ILLEGAL are: 1. Increased government income (nondeclared, slips easily into one's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Oops! (was Re: Medical Marijuana) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | (...) "foreign companies" sould be "foreign countries". yeeeesh! -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) ? I admit I'm not up on the issues, but essentially the reasons you give are "under-the-covers" reasoning. And as such, are they encouragable? IE is having "slush money" and "overseeing drug trade" and "illegally dealing in drugs" something (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Lawrence Wilkes
|
| | | | | | | "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:Gn9n82.12G@lugnet.com... (...) listen to the BBC radio program I mentioned in earlier post for discussions on US governments role in creating the drug problem (URL) 15 minutes in till the end (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) They're true assertions about how things operate. Further, they're extremely valid reasons for the powers that be to want drugs illegal although I deny that they've organised into an overarching conspiracy that has thought things through. But (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) I deny it too. I just think that you can get the same results with smaller factions all vying for power. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh ya. We're not arguing about that!!! I think maybe you can even argue that you get the results FASTER with many smaller organisms competing (in the market of bad ideas fostered by the very existence of big government and the system it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Medical Marijuana —Lawrence Wilkes
|
| | | | "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Gn994v.CIp@lugnet.com... (...) Because taxing it at 80,000% would simply continue the demand for illegal, untaxed product lawrence (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
