Ending the Failed War on Drugs
Off topic: I sense some hyperbole in Thaws' replies, but I agree that the government should not be in the business of supplying unhealthy foods to our kids in an era of skyrocketing obesity rates, declining hours of phys ed and activity outside schools, and the like. There's an elementary school 100 feet from my apartment, and some of the kids can't even walk in a straight line or move their arms easily because rolls of fat get in the way. There's a soda machine right by the entrance serving regular sodas. After 3 sodas a day (about 100g of sugar), some of these kids are consuming 36,500 grams of sugar a year, or 36.5 kg, or 80 pounds of sugar--more than their weight in empty calories each year from the sodas ALONE. Maybe our schools shouldn't be in the business of encouraging obesity--though I wouldn't outlaw junk food, sin taxes wouldn't bother me.
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
..and it is my opnion that certrain drugs of abuse ought be regulated, but not banned, and others ought be banned outright. Convince me that heroin, crack, PCP, marijuana and the other illegal drugs AREN'T amenable to useful regulation and DON'T present a need for their proscription. Here's your big chancethings should be more regulated or banned along a continuum to the extent they are amenable to useful regulation and present a need for it
Completely unsupported by the gamut of scientific and medical evidence available. And I challenge anyone to present good evidence to convince me otherwise. Here's your big chance.then we make a good case that foods do more damage to our country than drugs and that many drugs can be or usually are no more harmful than foods, then we've got a good case that at least some drugs are over regulated.
Gene
In reply to "then we make a good case that foods do more damage to our country than drugs and that many drugs can be or usually are no more harmful than foods, then we've got a good case that at least some drugs are over regulated," Gene wrote: "Completely unsupported by the gamut of scientific and medical evidence available. And I challenge anyone to present good evidence to convince me otherwise. Here's your big chance."
And here's my big data:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_16.pdf
These are mortality statisitics for the USA for 1999-2000. The top causes are cardiac (primarily related to lifestyle) and cancer [(sometimes related to diet; the leading killer (lung cancer) is directly related to a legal substance, tobacco; many other cancers are frequently related to tobacco and alcohol abuse (head and neck, gastric, pancreatic, esophageal come to mind)] and these two killed about half of everyone who died. The other leading killers, (top ten accounted for ~80% of deaths) include:
3: cerebrovascular--well linked to diet
4: chronic lower respiratory disease--well linked to tobacco
5: accidents--sometimes linked to alcohol and other drugs
6: diabetes--well linked to diet
7: pneumonia / influenza
8: alzheimers
9: kidney disease-- well linked to #6 or to vascular disease (#1,3)
10: sepsis
So 7 out of the 10 leading killers of america, accounting for a large (>/= HALF) fraction of deaths, are related to diet and legal drugs. Don't doubt that pnuemonia and sepsis are more severe and more common in diabetics who got that way in large part from their diets.
I am unaware of a lethal dose of marijuana or mushrooms and am unaware of anything but the rare usually traffic related deaths due to these substances. No "illicit" drugs appear on the list of top ten killers. Food on the other hand contributes to the cause of death in most americans.
If the documented fact that food is demonstrably a major killer and together with legal drugs is responsible for the large majority of american deaths whereas drugs cause relatively few and some cause essentially none is NOT adequate proof of my modest assertion, well, you are not letting the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Gene also wrote: "It is my opnion that certrain drugs of abuse ought be regulated, but not banned, and others ought be banned outright. Convince me that heroin, crack, PCP, marijuana and the other illegal drugs AREN'T amenable to useful regulation and DON'T present a need for their proscription. Here's your big chance."
I can't prove or disprove that which is essentially an opinion you hold, which is that things that are bad for you (diet and certain addictive, commonly used / commonly lethal drugs excepted of course) should be banned. I never said that those drugs AREN'T amenable to regulation--in fact I've obviously been pushing for regulation and not prohibition the whole time. So there's nothing to say about that. However, I think it is a bit off target to discuss whether hard drugs present a "need for their proscription." The common cold may present a need for proscription, but since banning it would be futile, it isn't worth discussing.
Over the years of our drug war, prices have dropped and purity has risen, and crime has flourished like it did under prohibition. Meanwhile in an effort to look tough on drugs, our politicians are underfunding treatment programs and deliberately avoiding support for lifesaving, proven interventions in lieu of unsuccessful punitive measures. Since we can't stop people from using drugs and we know we can regulate their use and provide safer drugs and settings to use them, we can do more good for those affected by drug abuse and those who pay for it by shifting to a treatment instead of a punishment model. Frankly I've never met an addict who was helped by punishment, quite a lot who are distrustful of the "system" (hospitals included) because of it, and many who've improved with help. Unless pragmatism is forbidden by our Constitution, that's the direction I think we should go.
Meanwhile I DO agree that the government CAN continue to fight its asinine war, and I don't see the point in returning to that detail. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go smack some eggs on my head because I CAN.
And here's my big data:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_16.pdf
These are mortality statisitics for the USA for 1999-2000. The top causes are cardiac (primarily related to lifestyle) and cancer [(sometimes related to diet; the leading killer (lung cancer) is directly related to a legal substance, tobacco; many other cancers are frequently related to tobacco and alcohol abuse (head and neck, gastric, pancreatic, esophageal come to mind)] and these two killed about half of everyone who died. The other leading killers, (top ten accounted for ~80% of deaths) include:
3: cerebrovascular--well linked to diet
4: chronic lower respiratory disease--well linked to tobacco
5: accidents--sometimes linked to alcohol and other drugs
6: diabetes--well linked to diet
7: pneumonia / influenza
8: alzheimers
9: kidney disease-- well linked to #6 or to vascular disease (#1,3)
10: sepsis
So 7 out of the 10 leading killers of america, accounting for a large (>/= HALF) fraction of deaths, are related to diet and legal drugs. Don't doubt that pnuemonia and sepsis are more severe and more common in diabetics who got that way in large part from their diets.
I am unaware of a lethal dose of marijuana or mushrooms and am unaware of anything but the rare usually traffic related deaths due to these substances. No "illicit" drugs appear on the list of top ten killers. Food on the other hand contributes to the cause of death in most americans.
If the documented fact that food is demonstrably a major killer and together with legal drugs is responsible for the large majority of american deaths whereas drugs cause relatively few and some cause essentially none is NOT adequate proof of my modest assertion, well, you are not letting the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Gene also wrote: "It is my opnion that certrain drugs of abuse ought be regulated, but not banned, and others ought be banned outright. Convince me that heroin, crack, PCP, marijuana and the other illegal drugs AREN'T amenable to useful regulation and DON'T present a need for their proscription. Here's your big chance."
I can't prove or disprove that which is essentially an opinion you hold, which is that things that are bad for you (diet and certain addictive, commonly used / commonly lethal drugs excepted of course) should be banned. I never said that those drugs AREN'T amenable to regulation--in fact I've obviously been pushing for regulation and not prohibition the whole time. So there's nothing to say about that. However, I think it is a bit off target to discuss whether hard drugs present a "need for their proscription." The common cold may present a need for proscription, but since banning it would be futile, it isn't worth discussing.
Over the years of our drug war, prices have dropped and purity has risen, and crime has flourished like it did under prohibition. Meanwhile in an effort to look tough on drugs, our politicians are underfunding treatment programs and deliberately avoiding support for lifesaving, proven interventions in lieu of unsuccessful punitive measures. Since we can't stop people from using drugs and we know we can regulate their use and provide safer drugs and settings to use them, we can do more good for those affected by drug abuse and those who pay for it by shifting to a treatment instead of a punishment model. Frankly I've never met an addict who was helped by punishment, quite a lot who are distrustful of the "system" (hospitals included) because of it, and many who've improved with help. Unless pragmatism is forbidden by our Constitution, that's the direction I think we should go.
Meanwhile I DO agree that the government CAN continue to fight its asinine war, and I don't see the point in returning to that detail. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go smack some eggs on my head because I CAN.
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
-
Guest
Hard to say Gene. I quess if Ian was a vagan he would not consider eggs food and he would still have egg yolks all over his head.Gene DeMambro wrote:Interesting statistics. I wonder what would happen if we ban food altogether....
Banning the wacky weed did not stop it's use. today we got a gazillion folks in prison for not using or inhaling the stuff. And that costs 70 gazillion bucks per year to feed and house them all.
On the other hand if we ban food they all will die of starvation and our problem is solved and a tax burden reduced.
Laird
Death Diet Drugs
Hey Laird,
Nothing was written into the statistics about deaths caused by illegal drugs, such as the use of guns, knive, etc. About the number of injuries and miseries and suffering, about the crime, etc. caused by illegal usage which all could be stopped or at least greatly squelched by legalization. Wonder how many deaths are caused by illegal drugs, both direct and indirect that go on un-reported, underreported, or mis-reported. Those numbers may never be found and/or accurately calculated.
If illegal drugs were converted to legal drugs, then maybe they could also then be called health food rather than the death diet they now are.
Hey Laird,
Nothing was written into the statistics about deaths caused by illegal drugs, such as the use of guns, knive, etc. About the number of injuries and miseries and suffering, about the crime, etc. caused by illegal usage which all could be stopped or at least greatly squelched by legalization. Wonder how many deaths are caused by illegal drugs, both direct and indirect that go on un-reported, underreported, or mis-reported. Those numbers may never be found and/or accurately calculated.
If illegal drugs were converted to legal drugs, then maybe they could also then be called health food rather than the death diet they now are.
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
-
Guest
Canada has ended its war on drugs. Canada never really had a war on drugs. We are presently decriminalizing possession of marijuana. This pleases me. I'm not pro pot, but statistics tell us a significant number of youth will try this substance. I hope my kids don't get caught up in it, but if they do they won't waist ten years of their lives in the crow bar hotel.
We have also legalized the medical use of marijuana. We now harbor many American refuges from the war on drugs. These people use the drug legally in Canada to find relief from their illnesses. Back home they would be incarcerated. These people remind me of the draft dodgers who fled a war and prison. Most of them eventually returned home. It is my hope that these ill people are allowed to return to their native land and families before they succumb to their illnesses.
We have also opened a safe injection site for addicts in Vancouver. Instead of forcing needle use underground we will provide a medical clinic with clean needles. As long as we force addiction into the shadows we will see the spread of diseases like Hepatitis and HIV.
I believe if society is interested in reducing the crime associated with funding drug addiction, they have to stop treating drug addiction as a crime. Addiction is an illness, and a life threatening one. Treat the addicted with compassion, help them don't punish them. The price of illegal drugs is what fuels the crime. Theft, robbery and the sex trade the usual method of funding the addiction. If we want to reduce the crime provide the fix free of charge with a clean needle. That will take the profits out of Mr. Drug Dealers operation. The war on drugs should focus on the dealers, but lets not forget to treat our wounded , no one should get left behind in this war.
Laird
We have also legalized the medical use of marijuana. We now harbor many American refuges from the war on drugs. These people use the drug legally in Canada to find relief from their illnesses. Back home they would be incarcerated. These people remind me of the draft dodgers who fled a war and prison. Most of them eventually returned home. It is my hope that these ill people are allowed to return to their native land and families before they succumb to their illnesses.
We have also opened a safe injection site for addicts in Vancouver. Instead of forcing needle use underground we will provide a medical clinic with clean needles. As long as we force addiction into the shadows we will see the spread of diseases like Hepatitis and HIV.
I believe if society is interested in reducing the crime associated with funding drug addiction, they have to stop treating drug addiction as a crime. Addiction is an illness, and a life threatening one. Treat the addicted with compassion, help them don't punish them. The price of illegal drugs is what fuels the crime. Theft, robbery and the sex trade the usual method of funding the addiction. If we want to reduce the crime provide the fix free of charge with a clean needle. That will take the profits out of Mr. Drug Dealers operation. The war on drugs should focus on the dealers, but lets not forget to treat our wounded , no one should get left behind in this war.
Laird
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Hear hear!I believe if society is interested in reducing the crime associated with funding drug addiction, they have to stop treating drug addiction as a crime. Addiction is an illness, and a life threatening one. Treat the addicted with compassion, help them don't punish them.
This argument can be entered through many doors. But at the crux of the Unitarian Universalist approach is compassion for those who are harmed either through addiction, violence, or loss.
I firmly belive that the finger pointing mentality of criminalizing addicts is completely unhelpful. The addict, once put in jail, is exposed to an environment where they learn more ways of violence, more of the culture of subversion, and feel less connected to mainstream society. That same addict, treated with compassion instead of incarceration could learn to manage their behaviors and continue to contribute to society.
Does it really matter what substance the person is addicted to? Please examine your thoughts on why some drugs are more evil than others - what makes the drug evil? The cost, the bodily harm, the scarcity, your unfamiliarity with the drug, how addictive the drug is? Again I question - does the substance of the addiction matter?
Dealing Drug Dealer Deaths
Dealing Drug Dealer Deaths
Just give 'em what they need at realistic prices and let God sort it all out rather than the way it is being handled now. [I was PC super-careful in writing this paragraph, actually the entire post, in such a fashion as to avoid FP -- I hate watering down what I WANT to write and say but don't want to offend and being dainty about a subject far from will never solve anything ].
I was thinking caused by the druggies for starters. Call it the war between the drug lords; call it the war between the drug dealers; call it the war between the street gangs. call it the war between the one who needs money to suport his habit and all those surrounding him, lj.Allen--aren't those deaths caused not by drugs, but by the war on drugs?
Just give 'em what they need at realistic prices and let God sort it all out rather than the way it is being handled now. [I was PC super-careful in writing this paragraph, actually the entire post, in such a fashion as to avoid FP -- I hate watering down what I WANT to write and say but don't want to offend and being dainty about a subject far from will never solve anything ].
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
The creation of a crime
There are different classes of "crime". I'm not talking about the difference between a "felony" and a "misdemeanor" or between a "criminal offense" and a "civil offense"... (although it is related)
What I mean is that there are certain "crimes" which we all agree are, well...
crimes!
We can all agree that "murder" (killing another without need or cause as opposed to "justifiable homocide" in the case of defending yourself or other innocent people) is a crime. We, as a people, as society, and through the government we've instituted, have properly codified this act as a crime. We, as a people, as society, as a race, even without government or a criminal code, knew for centuries that this was a bad thing and that those who did nefarious deeds should be held accountable. (Irrespective of the historical facts that there were those throughout history who "got away with it" for whatever reason, people still knew what was right or wrong as a whole)
Similar arguments can be made for a number of crimes, such as rape, assault, arson, fraud, forgery, vandelism, torture, kidnapping, theft...
These are pretty universal in being considered "criminal acts". While different societies and groups chose to punish these crimes differently, the fact remains that humans generally agree that these things are crimes.
But then there's the "other" type of crime. Falling under this heading are just about every statute or law that doesn't deal with the first type of crime just mentioned. These "crimes" include (but certainly aren't limited to) the "so-called" victimless crimes. Though it may be a tough sell for many, one such "crime" is prostitution. In some countries, that, ahem, "business" is completely legal and regulated. In fact, in parts of the USA (Nevada), there is a booming business in legal, regulated prostitution. But an "entrepreneur" who engages in that business faces all manner of criminal sanctions. As we've seen on this thread, similar facts are true of many "illegal" drugs and activities. What is legal in one place, is grounds for imprisonment in another. Some other "crimes" that fall within this category include the fact that serious jail-time can occur for simply mis-filling-out certain paperwork... regardless of whether it was merely an honest mistake!
While I don't have too much of a problem with local areas or States making laws that contradict each other (IE: if you don't like the fact that you can't be a prostitute legally in VA, move to NV), the historical facts are clear that such statues should not be the purview of the Federal Government. When CA overwhelmningly voted to legalize medical marijuana, the Feds stepped in and said "no way" and started to enforce and arrest (through the DEA and Federal Prosecutors) the Federal "law" prohibiting that use. If Nevada wants to make prostitution legal and VA does not, that's fine. So why shouldn't that also be true for medical marijuana use. If you are opposed to legalization of some drugs, that's fine. Move to one of the States where it is illegal, but why shouldn't another State chose to legalize it and have their wishes left alone by the Feds. Similarly, if you don't want to pay State income taxes, move to one of the States that doesn't have income taxes! But just because your State DOES have income taxes, doesn't mean that ALL States should be required to follow suit. There are a number of reasons for people who don't use illegal drugs to be for their legalization. Those reasons include getting the Federal Government out of this failed business, allowing the people to chose in their own States, and the overall beliefs in Individual freedom to chose as well as the belief that the money could be better spent elsewhere. None of those things makes those who are for such changes in these completely arbitrary laws condone the use or misuse of such substances. Just as someone advocating the legalization and regulation of prostitution (for health reasons) does not mean that they would use the service.
As previously mentioned on these forums, What if the thing that were being banned, prohibited, prevented was your practice of the martial arts? How would you feel then? AND... with that in mind, consider these questions...
Would you agree to halt the War on Drugs, to leave others alone even if it means they ruin their own lives with whatever drug of choice they desire (alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, LSD, codeine, or any other substance) ...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, poly-sexual...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow people to run their own personal affairs and lives, even if it means they chose to exchange sexual favors for money...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process and bodies, even have abortions (at their own expense)...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies that they want (no matter how pornographic)...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Wiccans, Taoists, Scientologists, Christians, Jews, Satanists, Atheists, etc...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow people to have, carry, own, and use firearms (regardless of caliber, magazine size, rate of fire, etc) for personal defense, sport, hunting, civil defense...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to respect the rights of otherrs to do as they wish, on or with their own property, regardless of whether they decide to post "no trespassing" or "no hunting" or "no hiking" or if they decide to cut down all the trees or paint their house purple with pink polka-dots...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow others to do anything they wish, as long as it does not harm anyone else or cost government funds...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
How much do you believe in Freedom, Liberty, Rights and Personal Responsibility? Enough to leave others alone in order to insure your own?
It is simply insane to sacrifice your own precious Rights and Freedom just for the ability to impose your beliefs, tastes or opinions on others.
Keep in mind, that this is written under the premise that there are certain "universally recognized" crimes which we can all agree upon as this post started out with...
What I mean is that there are certain "crimes" which we all agree are, well...
crimes!
We can all agree that "murder" (killing another without need or cause as opposed to "justifiable homocide" in the case of defending yourself or other innocent people) is a crime. We, as a people, as society, and through the government we've instituted, have properly codified this act as a crime. We, as a people, as society, as a race, even without government or a criminal code, knew for centuries that this was a bad thing and that those who did nefarious deeds should be held accountable. (Irrespective of the historical facts that there were those throughout history who "got away with it" for whatever reason, people still knew what was right or wrong as a whole)
Similar arguments can be made for a number of crimes, such as rape, assault, arson, fraud, forgery, vandelism, torture, kidnapping, theft...
These are pretty universal in being considered "criminal acts". While different societies and groups chose to punish these crimes differently, the fact remains that humans generally agree that these things are crimes.
But then there's the "other" type of crime. Falling under this heading are just about every statute or law that doesn't deal with the first type of crime just mentioned. These "crimes" include (but certainly aren't limited to) the "so-called" victimless crimes. Though it may be a tough sell for many, one such "crime" is prostitution. In some countries, that, ahem, "business" is completely legal and regulated. In fact, in parts of the USA (Nevada), there is a booming business in legal, regulated prostitution. But an "entrepreneur" who engages in that business faces all manner of criminal sanctions. As we've seen on this thread, similar facts are true of many "illegal" drugs and activities. What is legal in one place, is grounds for imprisonment in another. Some other "crimes" that fall within this category include the fact that serious jail-time can occur for simply mis-filling-out certain paperwork... regardless of whether it was merely an honest mistake!
While I don't have too much of a problem with local areas or States making laws that contradict each other (IE: if you don't like the fact that you can't be a prostitute legally in VA, move to NV), the historical facts are clear that such statues should not be the purview of the Federal Government. When CA overwhelmningly voted to legalize medical marijuana, the Feds stepped in and said "no way" and started to enforce and arrest (through the DEA and Federal Prosecutors) the Federal "law" prohibiting that use. If Nevada wants to make prostitution legal and VA does not, that's fine. So why shouldn't that also be true for medical marijuana use. If you are opposed to legalization of some drugs, that's fine. Move to one of the States where it is illegal, but why shouldn't another State chose to legalize it and have their wishes left alone by the Feds. Similarly, if you don't want to pay State income taxes, move to one of the States that doesn't have income taxes! But just because your State DOES have income taxes, doesn't mean that ALL States should be required to follow suit. There are a number of reasons for people who don't use illegal drugs to be for their legalization. Those reasons include getting the Federal Government out of this failed business, allowing the people to chose in their own States, and the overall beliefs in Individual freedom to chose as well as the belief that the money could be better spent elsewhere. None of those things makes those who are for such changes in these completely arbitrary laws condone the use or misuse of such substances. Just as someone advocating the legalization and regulation of prostitution (for health reasons) does not mean that they would use the service.
As previously mentioned on these forums, What if the thing that were being banned, prohibited, prevented was your practice of the martial arts? How would you feel then? AND... with that in mind, consider these questions...
Would you agree to halt the War on Drugs, to leave others alone even if it means they ruin their own lives with whatever drug of choice they desire (alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, LSD, codeine, or any other substance) ...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, poly-sexual...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow people to run their own personal affairs and lives, even if it means they chose to exchange sexual favors for money...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process and bodies, even have abortions (at their own expense)...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies that they want (no matter how pornographic)...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Wiccans, Taoists, Scientologists, Christians, Jews, Satanists, Atheists, etc...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow people to have, carry, own, and use firearms (regardless of caliber, magazine size, rate of fire, etc) for personal defense, sport, hunting, civil defense...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to respect the rights of otherrs to do as they wish, on or with their own property, regardless of whether they decide to post "no trespassing" or "no hunting" or "no hiking" or if they decide to cut down all the trees or paint their house purple with pink polka-dots...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
Would you agree to allow others to do anything they wish, as long as it does not harm anyone else or cost government funds...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
How much do you believe in Freedom, Liberty, Rights and Personal Responsibility? Enough to leave others alone in order to insure your own?
It is simply insane to sacrifice your own precious Rights and Freedom just for the ability to impose your beliefs, tastes or opinions on others.
Keep in mind, that this is written under the premise that there are certain "universally recognized" crimes which we can all agree upon as this post started out with...
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
I agree to or disagree with something because of a feeling of right/wrong, acceptance/distastefulness in my heart and soul, some of which may be society’s conditioning, but most I feel is in my genes, or just the way I am. Each of your enumerations is of its own merit, or dismerit, and has no bearing on being left alone to practice the martial arts, which may or may not someday be another battle.Would you agree to ...yadda, yadda...
if they agree to leave you alone and let you practice the martial arts?
In terms od crimes, Bart, there are a number of weird crimes on the books, and those are the types of crimes in which I was reffering. I did a study on such things a while back, and if anyone wishes for references they can do a Google search on "stupid laws" to for humor as well as to point out what I meant.
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
-- Allen
