ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
Now granted I have always been a social liberal, even when I did believe in things without any shred of evidence. I remember thinking, oh stuff your family values and get back to things that matter like fiscal issues.

I was a small government, deregulation, trickle down kind of republican/libertatian.

Trickle down seemed great on paper. It sounded perfectly logical. Tax cuts for business and the wealthy and no progressive, wealth redistributing tax policy. It will stimulate the economy and allow more jobs, better wages and lower prices........ BOY WAS I WRONG!

Nothing ever trickled down. Prices went up, wages didn't keep up with inflation and the gap between the highest and lowest paid increased 100 fold. (Literally, I am not even exaggerating.) A better idea is to put more money in the hands of the poor and middle class. Why you might ask? Because they will SPEND IT. Not only because they have to just to get by, but also because most of them aren't so good with money. Spending money is good for business. More spending, means more jobs, which makes for better wages. It also means more competition, which keeps prices from rising (and there by inflation). (Well except for the fed making money out of thin air, but that's another topic).


I was also big on deregulation. Well, I just discovered (thanks to banking), that in many cases that is a bad idea. Now sure there may be the odd thing that could do with less red tape, and I am sure there are plenty of federal departments that could be scrapped. But regulation is needed to protect us. That way we don't have to spend $700 billion to bail out a bunch of rich morons, who kept buying assets in something that was so obviously a bubble.


I also realized about a year ago, that government should take over insurance. Notice I didn't say "socialize" insurance? That is because insurance IS socialism. Everyone pays in and the people with the most need get the most and the people with the least need get the least. The only difference is the billions and billions of profits. The government doesn't need to profit, it just has to pay for the program. So it can give us much lower premiums and better coverage.


I'd still like to abolish a few government programs and departments, including the federal reserve. I'm against most gun control and while I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, I do think it is a good idea. Because really is life in prison any better?


So that's why I mostly agree with the democrats. There's that whole civil liberties thing too. We need to abolish the patriot act and every other bill that gives away our constitutional rights.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:04 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:27 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Kabutzkatura
Totally agree, the only way that sort of government would accually function is if humans wern't humans, as in wern't greedy, selfish, truely cared about each other.

If you want health insurance premiums to plummet what you need to do is make the the drug industry socialized. Take all patents and make it so any company can produce it so there is no price gouging and now these companies accually have to compete for sales.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:46 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:30 am
Posts: 450
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
I pretty much agree with everything except the gun laws! I look at Australia where we have much tighter gun control and the per capita %'s of gun related violence is enough to tell me it's a good idea! Australia is a pretty happy country and only a small minority of the population owns guns so I can't see owning a gun as such a good thing as a lot of US citizens do! Just my 2 cents!


ironmaiden708 wrote:
If you want health insurance premiums to plummet what you need to do is make the the drug industry socialized. Take all patents and make it so any company can produce it so there is no price gouging and now these companies accually have to compete for sales.


Also changing the rules on re-registering patents too! There is a way of 'adding additional research' to a drugs patent application after a certain number of years to extend the patent length from 5 years to 8 - 10 years if satisfactory evidence is porvided to show it has been tested for use in another condition, had another drug added to become a combo drug (think Panadiene Forte with Paracetamol and Codiene type mixes) and various other loopholes to stop generics being made for a longer period of time.

It is horrendous that the companies that could be saving millions of lives decide to save only a few hundred thousand lives in order to make more money! I guess it's the double edged sword though cause without the money they make they would cut corners in the research departments to increase profits so it is, at the moment and until laboratory time becomes cheaper, a necessary evil I guess!

I remember giving a chemo therapy drug to a patient during my training and seeing the label. This person was able to get it through the Australian Medicare system for $15 per vial, each vial was 2 doses at the patients dosage level. The full cost for a box of 5 vials (10 doses for this person) was $1950, $195 per injection! I can't remember the name of the drug but it was actually being used to treat rhuematoid arthritis not cancer, an immunosuppresant to stop the body attacking the joints. I was stunned, it almost made me too nervous to draw it up and administer the dose incase I spilled any (on top of the fat that it was a toxic chemical of course!) and wasted my tax dollars!

The other thing is the Gov't could throw some Defence Force spending in the direction of the Health Care System, I read somewhere that all it would take is about a 5% sway to totally revolutionise the US health system?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:16 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Texas
Every technological advancement, every drug developed, every day we work is because of greed. Greed is what drives the human spirit. Greed is what killed communism. If we all weren't greedy, we should donate all our money, luxuries, modern technology etc. to the masses. We should all be living on the bare minimum it takes us to survive.

If you have a product or a skill, why shouldn't you be able to charge whatever you can get for it? Greed by stealing from one so another can have more is bad. If I am a biochemist and I bust my ass, spend twenty years developing a product that cures obesity, then why can't I charge what the market will bare? If I am not going to get a return on my investment, why should I make the investment of my time and expertise to develop something?

Why should a drug company, who is in business to make money by the way, spend a dime or R&D if they will never recoup the benefits of their investment? Do you think Henry Ford developed the modern assembly line just so every American could own a car? No, he figured out a way to make a car cheap enough for every American to afford and then charged what he thought he could to make the most money he could. He built the Model T, an affodable vehicle, not because he was an altruist, but because he was greedy.

You might ask how much money is too much for these drug companies (I hear the same for the oil companies). I say get whatever you can. If you limit one person or one company on how much money they make, who is to say we can't limit you? Isn't that the same as communism? When was the last time you said no to a raise? Do you not have more than you need right now?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
We should leave drug companies as they are. Otherwise they won't make any new drugs for us. Same reason we can't socialize health care.

Oil companies on the other hand get to charge a lot because of scarcity and investor speculation. There should be windfall profit taxes, but you can't artificially set prices. We need to move on to other forms of energy. If the oil companies want to continue to exist, they will get in on the action/ Otherwise they will die with oil.

As for guns, more control may or may not work in Australia. I have not seen any data. However here in the US, it doesn't work. You can have laws restricting who can have guns and some general rules about use and registering etc, ant that is ok. But if you make a gun or type of gun illegal, it doesn't matter to criminals because they don't obey the law anyway. If a criminal wants to kill someone a gun violation is a minor thing compared to murder. I don't think it will help. Plus guns are smuggled in because it is already illegal for those people to own guns anyway.

If you look at states where concealed weapons were made legal there is a sharp drop in crime. This is because criminals don't know which of their victims might shoot them. There have also been shooting sprees that were cut short by a person with a gun. Never underestimate a person with a gun who doesn't want to die!

The only way to stop gun violence is to legalize drugs. The drug black market, like any black market raises prices a thousand fold or more. That money is what funds crime, including gun smuggling. No more black market, no more high prices, no more money to fund street gangs and organized crime.

Look at places like Switzerland, those people all have guns and the crime rate is low.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:49 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Texas
I know this is hypocritical, but I have no problem with legalizing marijuana but I cant say the same thing about the hard drugs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:37 pm 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:30 am
Posts: 450
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Ironman wrote:
We should leave drug companies as they are. Otherwise they won't make any new drugs for us. Same reason we can't socialize health care.

Oil companies on the other hand get to charge a lot because of scarcity and investor speculation. There should be windfall profit taxes, but you can't artificially set prices. We need to move on to other forms of energy. If the oil companies want to continue to exist, they will get in on the action/ Otherwise they will die with oil.

As for guns, more control may or may not work in Australia. I have not seen any data. However here in the US, it doesn't work. You can have laws restricting who can have guns and some general rules about use and registering etc, ant that is ok. But if you make a gun or type of gun illegal, it doesn't matter to criminals because they don't obey the law anyway. If a criminal wants to kill someone a gun violation is a minor thing compared to murder. I don't think it will help. Plus guns are smuggled in because it is already illegal for those people to own guns anyway.

If you look at states where concealed weapons were made legal there is a sharp drop in crime. This is because criminals don't know which of their victims might shoot them. There have also been shooting sprees that were cut short by a person with a gun. Never underestimate a person with a gun who doesn't want to die!

The only way to stop gun violence is to legalize drugs. The drug black market, like any black market raises prices a thousand fold or more. That money is what funds crime, including gun smuggling. No more black market, no more high prices, no more money to fund street gangs and organized crime.

Look at places like Switzerland, those people all have guns and the crime rate is low.


Hey I just did a quick search about Australia's tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur Masacre (I knew the guy, Martin Bryant, he was dating my next door neighbour, he killed 36 and injured 37 with automatics nad semi-automatics as well as a shot gun and hand gun) and the decline in guns deaths since the laws were introduced.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

Speaks volumes to me about gun control being good not bad!

Just my opinion though!

John


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:43 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Kentucky, USA
While I will agree in theory that Gun Control will reduce Gun Violence. However, That agreement ends in "THEORY ONLY" for the US, and likely many other Nations.

Ironman has already stated the facts regarding Concealed Carry Laws lowering crime stats in the US. This is True. Combine those stats with the Crime and Murder Rate in Washington DC ,Historically the highest in the US, yet the strictest Gun Laws. This should truly be enough proof that Gun Control does not work to reduce crime in the US.

In all actuality, Gun Control and Gun Bans create Crime. They turn honest law abiding citizens into criminals, because many would not abide by any regulation to turn in weapons.

And my closing thought for this... Most Criminals did not get their gun legally in the first place. They will find a way to get a gun, when Law abiding citizens cannot.

Cliff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:51 pm 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:35 am
Posts: 143
jeffrerr wrote:
Hey I just did a quick search about Australia's tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur Masacre (I knew the guy, Martin Bryant, he was dating my next door neighbour, he killed 36 and injured 37 with automatics nad semi-automatics as well as a shot gun and hand gun) and the decline in guns deaths since the laws were introduced.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

Speaks volumes to me about gun control being good not bad!

Just my opinion though!

John


Curious .. what is the number of violent criminal acts committed in Australia per 100,000 compared to the United States? I wasn't able to find two comparable numbers for Australia and the US, so I just have the US. According to the FBI: The violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States in 2007 was 466.9.

Violent Crime includes:
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:52 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Texas
I've posted this before. Say baaa.

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to theUnited States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens?

What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like
big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.

Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:02 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4422
Location: Pennsylvania
Crime rates are affected by my MANY variables. In order to attribute a decline in crime to any single factor, one would need to eliminate other possible causes, something this study doesn't seem to do.

Also, it's difficult to draw accurate conclusions when dealing with such small numbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:05 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4422
Location: Pennsylvania
I also find it a little strange that the study includes firearms suicides, but makes no mension of the overall suicide rate. I don't see any benefit in reducing the rate of firearms suicides if the overall rate of suicides remains unchanged (or increases).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:12 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:51 pm
Posts: 1802
Location: Mass, USA
hoosegow wrote:
I know this is hypocritical, but I have no problem with legalizing marijuana but I cant say the same thing about the hard drugs.


Agreed.

A childhood friend of mine said to me when I ran into him recently: "You know it is easier to quit heroin than it is to quit smoking. I have detoxed twice, but I can't stay away. They should put us all on an island, ship us junk and let us boot till we die." So for that reason alone, that point of view, I think "hard" drugs should remain illegal.

Plus I think it would start a sort of public funding of foreign groups that supply these drugs. That, I don't believe would be a good thing.

Ironman wrote:
Trickle down seemed great on paper. It sounded perfectly logical. Tax cuts for business and the wealthy and no progressive, wealth redistributing tax policy. It will stimulate the economy and allow more jobs, better wages and lower prices........ BOY WAS I WRONG!


McCain is pushing this trash tonight. The sad part is some people actually think it will work, I work with fellow accountants that think it would work, now that is stupidity. We see everyday why it won't, and doesn't, but they just don't get it. I think what Hoosegow said, which I agree with is the perfect example of why it will never work.

hoosegow wrote:
If you have a product or a skill, why shouldn't you be able to charge whatever you can get for it? Greed by stealing from one so another can have more is bad. If I am a biochemist and I bust my ass, spend twenty years developing a product that cures obesity, then why can't I charge what the market will bare? If I am not going to get a return on my investment, why should I make the investment of my time and expertise to develop something?


Oh and as a side note:

And yes, every American should have the right to own a gun. I would even propose that in high school we teach each member of this country how to handle, and safely use guns. Forget sex ed, no one listens, lets have weapon education.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
Actually quitting smoking is like quitting cocaine, not heroin. Going cold turkey with heroin can kill you. You don't need methadone to quit smoking.

Next point is, I don't care what the drug does to people who take it. That is irrelevant as it effects very few people. I care about what a black market does, because it effects EVERYONE. Those junkies are going to die anyway. But how about all the people who are killed in violent crimes paid for with black market drug money? How about all the people we pay to keep in prison that are no danger to anyone? How about all the murders that have to have reduced sentences because of the overcrowding this stupid drug war causes?

The problem is when people are faced with an obviously right choice where they must do something that may be harmful to a few people in order to save several millions of times more people, they won't do it. If they have to be active in something that has the slightest negative, they just say f*ck it, do nothing, and let the whole world burn.

So criminals are fine with breaking murder laws, but they are not going to mess around with a gun violation?
Am I the only one that thinks that makes about as much sense as a condom machine in the Vatican?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:08 am 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:51 pm
Posts: 1802
Location: Mass, USA
Ironman wrote:
I care about what a black market does, because it effects EVERYONE. Those junkies are going to die anyway. But how about all the people who are killed in violent crimes paid for with black market drug money? How about all the people we pay to keep in prison that are no danger to anyone? How about all the murders that have to have reduced sentences because of the overcrowding this stupid drug war causes?


Good points, but I have been trained to follow the money path. We would have to grow and refine the drugs domestically in order to truly accomplish this on a global scale. That is where the rub is. Like (I think) you were saying, it would take a complete shift in not just American culture, but the global culture as well.

Why do the Bushes like to declare war so much? Or was Regan the one who declared the War on Drugs? I get confused. (Although this whole street/blue collar “crime is a MAJOR problem, over stuff our prisons” bull started with Nixon I believe.)

Quote:
So criminals are fine with breaking murder laws, but they are not going to mess around with a gun violation?
Am I the only one that thinks that makes about as much sense as a condom machine in the Vatican?


Now that is comedy, but no that statement is asinine.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group