From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3f6336$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more guilty than
> the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind killing, drug.
> --
> Peter

weg9 says: In that case, we should throw our own government into
jail.....They are the biggest drug dealers of all. They collect excessive
taxes on both tobacco and alcohol products, and have all of my life. I like
my imaginary cartoon.....A couple of soldiers on the front lines in a
war......And one says to the other, "Well, that shot was for the average
American, but we can't leave yet......I have to fire this other shot for the
guy who smokes and drinks.....After all, he pays more taxes than everyone
else."

From: Gary Theilsen on
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:54:09 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:17:30 -0600, Gary Theilsen <nocontact(a)spamfree.com>
>wrote:
>: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>: wrote:
>:
>: >If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
>: >with your second hand smoke.
>:
>: You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bullshit!", the
>: episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE person
>: has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased and
>: badly done research paper ...
>
>I can't refute that, and I have to admit that you may very well be right. But
>I can tell you this: I was born in 1937. At least through young adulthood, I
>was prone to getting frequent splitting headaches for no apparent reason. But
>as smoking was banned in more and more places that I frequented, the frequency
>of my headaches lessened dramatically. Now except for one guy I walk past most
>mornings on the commuter rail platform, I almost never encounter a smoker. And
>I literally can't remember the last time I had a headache. Is that proof of
>cause and effect? No. Do I believe it's cause and effect? You bet. So would
>you, if you were in my shoes. And you would most certainly want the legal
>system to help you avoid smokers for the rest of your life, as do I. And
>whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'll vote to make that happen.
>
>I have been a registered Republican since 1958. You can look it up (in the
>party records in Connecticut and Massachusetts). So don't even think of
>referring to me as a "liberal".
>
>Bob

Then when the opportunity presents itself to ban all non-smokers from every
place I patronize, I will vote to make that happen. I pay taxes too, my
rights must be represented equal to your own. If not, then no taxation
without representation. Ever hear what that lead to in the past? You lousy
self-righteous self-serving hypocrite.



From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3f6337$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>
>>> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>>> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes
>>> harm, should that be illegal?
>>> --
>>> Peter
>> Two separate questions. Laws against murder and etc. should definitely be
>> on the books, because they impact the rest of us.
>
>
>
>>
>> If you need or want a dangerous substance for your own experimentation,
>> well, why should you be refused it as long as you don't harm anyone else
>> with it? There is a talk show host in the bay area who was all for
>> banning books that told people how to build bombs from the library. I
>> couldn't convince her otherwise. The fact that a policeman who
>> specializes in disarming bombs might need such a book, didn't make no
>> never mind to her. She was for censoring books that contained specific
>> knowledge about anything that she personally considered to be "bad" Like
>> this would make for a "good" society........Just like banning guns would
>> make for a "safe" society to Ray. Well, I disagree with that. I think all
>> knowledge should be available to everyone. Who is good or bad has nothing
>> to do with who knows what. the more intelligent the society, the less
>> crime there will likely be in any case. Intelligent people can make a
>> good living without resorting to crime.
>
> You didn't answer my question. What about the seducer, the guy that
> knowingly induces the abuser. Please read my question again, carefully.
> After you answer, I will have a grater understanding of your thought
> process. We may or may not agree. But, I will certainly then know how, or
> whether to pursue this discussion.
>
> --
> Peter

weg9 says: Causes harm to whom? We have people working night and day
developing things that "cause harm". They develop armament for the
military.....Better guns, and chemical weapons......Lots of people study and
work at, "causing harm". It is (unfortunately) a necessity in this modern
world.

It isn't the knowledge, or the development of harmful stuff that matters,
its using it that should be illegal. You don't ban books about harmful
stuff. You ban the people who use them to cause harm to others. And even
then, they have to cause harm to your friends.....Its OK to harm your
enemies. I believe that knowledge should be available to all.......Its only
using the knowledge to cause harm to the good guys that should be illegal.

Lets take a modern example......The possession of child pornography. Some
states have laws against the possession of child pornography. I don't
believe in these laws. (I think they are unconstitutional) Why? Suppose I am
driving down a road in the country, and I see a trunk by the side of the
road......I wonder what's in the trunk, so I stop and inspect it. It is
locked, and I have no tools with me to open it. So, I put it in my trunk and
drive it home to open it. On the way home, I have an accident, and the
police and fire department show up at the scene and find the trunk in my
trunk, and it has burst open and they discover that it is full of photos of
child pornography......They arrest me and accuse me of possession of CP,
when I had no idea that was what the trunk contained. I believe creating CP
should be a crime, but not possessing it. I believe that I should be allowed
to possess anything I please. This is part of the libertarian philosophy.

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3f66ec$0$19470$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nIWdnaHfrs-sXaPWnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b3eb7d7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ut6dnQT77LUaMaPWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am
>>>> in favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone
>>>> should have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay
>>>> for, with or without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some
>>>> doctor to have control over you or your body? He should be paid for his
>>>> advice, and not for his power.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
>>>> presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the powers
>>>> we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split over
>>>> whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it is not
>>>> my fault.
>>>>
>>>> My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are
>>>> forced to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you
>>>> would not be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you
>>>> anything if I broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for
>>>> anyone who is carried in to them off the street is a liberal law.....It
>>>> is not my doing. Today, we have the ability to identify anyone in a few
>>>> seconds by scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip
>>>> implanted under their skin. We don't have to take care of people who
>>>> are here illegally, or who who refuse to buy health insurance. If you
>>>> want to take care of these irresponsible people, then do so, but please
>>>> don't charge me for it.
>>>>
>>>> "We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to
>>>> control people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that? Would
>>>> you like to live in Iran, where the government controls everyone's
>>>> morality? then go there......I would like to control my own morality,
>>>> thanks. If I want to drink or smoke myself to death, than why would you
>>>> care? And, be careful.....Pretty soon the senate will get around to
>>>> preventing you from doing something that you would like to do, and stop
>>>> it by taxing the hell out of it....what will you do then? Maybe they
>>>> will decide that pastrami sandwiches or egg cr�mes are bad for you.
>>>> Anything that most of them don't regularly do, as a matter of
>>>> fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles without their helmets, so
>>>> it is easy for them to make a law against it.......I don't see them
>>>> making any laws forcing you to wear a helmet on the golf
>>>> course......You can get a broken head there, too. I wonder why not? Is
>>>> it because golf is an old geezers game, and a lot of them play
>>>> it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)
>>>
>>>
>>> You obviously know nothing about golf,
>>>
>>> Tiger the Geezer.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course wearing
>> a helmet.
>
> Not even the workers dong repair work? :-)
>
>>
>> And, I am not a "classic conservative". I am not even a conservative. I
>> am a libertarian.
>
> Your postings have demonstrated your lack of adherence to conservative
> principles.
>
> For an interesting read see:
>
> http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm
>
> How consistent is that article with your views?
>
>
> --
> Peter

weg9 says: Yes, the article is quite consistent with my views. But
sometimes it is difficult to decide exactly what the libertarian view
is......If, by exercising some right or other, I inadvertently take away
someone else's right, then perhaps government should have the right to
intervene and not allow my exercise of that right, and it is not always easy
to make those decisions, so some compromise is usually necessary.......It is
an imperfect world, even for us libertarians.......:^)

From: Bill Graham on

"Gary Theilsen" <nocontact(a)spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:5830k5pn0etcrovkev223n4n2ub9fnpiio(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:54:09 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:17:30 -0600, Gary Theilsen <nocontact(a)spamfree.com>
>>wrote:
>>: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
>><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>>: wrote:
>>:
>>: >If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
>>lungs
>>: >with your second hand smoke.
>>:
>>: You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bullshit!", the
>>: episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE
>>person
>>: has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased
>>and
>>: badly done research paper ...
>>
>>I can't refute that, and I have to admit that you may very well be right.
>>But
>>I can tell you this: I was born in 1937. At least through young adulthood,
>>I
>>was prone to getting frequent splitting headaches for no apparent reason.
>>But
>>as smoking was banned in more and more places that I frequented, the
>>frequency
>>of my headaches lessened dramatically. Now except for one guy I walk past
>>most
>>mornings on the commuter rail platform, I almost never encounter a smoker.
>>And
>>I literally can't remember the last time I had a headache. Is that proof
>>of
>>cause and effect? No. Do I believe it's cause and effect? You bet. So
>>would
>>you, if you were in my shoes. And you would most certainly want the legal
>>system to help you avoid smokers for the rest of your life, as do I. And
>>whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'll vote to make that happen.
>>
>>I have been a registered Republican since 1958. You can look it up (in the
>>party records in Connecticut and Massachusetts). So don't even think of
>>referring to me as a "liberal".
>>
>>Bob
>
> Then when the opportunity presents itself to ban all non-smokers from
> every
> place I patronize, I will vote to make that happen. I pay taxes too, my
> rights must be represented equal to your own. If not, then no taxation
> without representation. Ever hear what that lead to in the past? You lousy
> self-righteous self-serving hypocrite.
>
>
>
weg9 says: If you don't get a headache when that diesel bus is going down
your street, spewing diesel fumes into the air, then your allergy is not as
bad as you seem to think. I believe smoking should be banned in all public
buildings and places where a normal person might have to go, but I believe
that a smoking bartender should have the right to buy his own bar, and put a
sign on the front door that says, "Warning - This is a smoking
establishment. If you enter here, you will be subject to second hand smoke.
If this is unacceptable, then please go down the block to Mike's
place.....They don't smoke there." After all, you will be better off if all
the smokers in that area are crowded into the smoking bar, than you would if
they were all out on the street standing on the street corners smoking,
wouldn't you?