| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Jul 2005 11:32:56 PM |
| Object: |
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
Abstinence is still the best policy, if you are in one of the risk
catagories. Can't catch anything if you aren't doing anything. It's by
far the most successful method of birth control; which is not such a
bad idea in Africa and parts of Asia. Healthier people, less people,
more food and less diseases to go around. That's a sound policy that
works and once again, the pontiff promotes life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not
to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV
can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a
widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms,
despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are
untrue.
.
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 09:19:21 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-605466.23472015072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <gLuBe.106818$du.69013@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-609968.22363813072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <9n7Be.96228$du.42984@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-988383.22254012072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <w%OAe.50762$qm.35322@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-5C8908.23364311072005@news.giganews.com...
In article
<1121056376.355199.318780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Abstinence is still the best policy, if you are in one of the
risk
catagories. Can't catch anything if you aren't doing anything.
It's
by
far the most successful method of birth control; which is not
such
a
bad idea in Africa and parts of Asia. Healthier people, less
people,
more food and less diseases to go around. That's a sound policy
that
works and once again, the pontiff promotes life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by
Aids
not
to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through
which
HIV
can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a
widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to
HIV.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable
condoms,
despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they
are
untrue.
Why would I want to believe any ***** coming out of the
Vatican?
With
it's stupid policies and condoms and contraception, the RCC could
be
responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin.
How does that work? The Catholic Church says "don't use condoms".
So
who
is
going to listen to that? Not a non-Catholic.
Only a Catholic listens to Catholic teaching. So what couple would
listen
to
the Church about not using condoms, but would not listen to the
Church
about
having sex outside of marriage? So how does someone who listens to
the
Pope
catch AIDS?
Do you really think that Catholics don't have sex out of mariage or
catch AIDS, but then again you probably think that AIDS is your
god's
death sentence for people doing something that is natural for
humans.
Your scenario, is full of holes - motheaten - like your soul.
What's a soul?
I'm not here to educate ninkumpoops.
Only a nincompoop would misspell 'nincompoops'.
You want some mustard on that foot?
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Pi
Funny, but let's see what a real dictionary says:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nincompoop&x=20&
y=16
One entry found for nincompoop.
Main Entry: nincompoop
Pronunciation: 'nin-k&m-"püp, 'ni[ng]-
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
: FOOL, SIMPLETON
- nincompoopery /-"pü-p&-rE/ noun
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ninkumpoop&x=9&y
=27
<search for 'ninkumpoop'>
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
You can have your mustard back.
Why give a liar a chance to talk?
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
17 Jul 2005 05:55:52 AM |
|
|
But having all your improper advances spurned DOES...
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SuperFaggot" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 10:43:06 AM |
|
|
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when bam wrote:
"johac" wrote...
<snip>
You can have your mustard back.
Why give a liar a chance to talk?
Quoth the Liar...
--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
17 Jul 2005 01:30:13 AM |
|
|
In article <WG8Ce.42486$ag7.30189@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-605466.23472015072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <gLuBe.106818$du.69013@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-609968.22363813072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <9n7Be.96228$du.42984@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-988383.22254012072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <w%OAe.50762$qm.35322@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-5C8908.23364311072005@news.giganews.com...
In article
<1121056376.355199.318780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Abstinence is still the best policy, if you are in one of the
risk
catagories. Can't catch anything if you aren't doing anything.
It's
by
far the most successful method of birth control; which is not
such
a
bad idea in Africa and parts of Asia. Healthier people, less
people,
more food and less diseases to go around. That's a sound policy
that
works and once again, the pontiff promotes life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by
Aids
not
to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through
which
HIV
can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a
widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to
HIV.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable
condoms,
despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they
are
untrue.
Why would I want to believe any ***** coming out of the
Vatican?
With
it's stupid policies and condoms and contraception, the RCC could
be
responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin.
How does that work? The Catholic Church says "don't use condoms".
So
who
is
going to listen to that? Not a non-Catholic.
Only a Catholic listens to Catholic teaching. So what couple would
listen
to
the Church about not using condoms, but would not listen to the
Church
about
having sex outside of marriage? So how does someone who listens to
the
Pope
catch AIDS?
Do you really think that Catholics don't have sex out of mariage or
catch AIDS, but then again you probably think that AIDS is your
god's
death sentence for people doing something that is natural for
humans.
Your scenario, is full of holes - motheaten - like your soul.
What's a soul?
I'm not here to educate ninkumpoops.
Only a nincompoop would misspell 'nincompoops'.
You want some mustard on that foot?
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Pi
Funny, but let's see what a real dictionary says:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nincompoop&x=20&
y=16
One entry found for nincompoop.
Main Entry: nincompoop
Pronunciation: 'nin-k&m-"püp, 'ni[ng]-
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
: FOOL, SIMPLETON
- nincompoopery /-"pü-p&-rE/ noun
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ninkumpoop&x=9&y
=27
<search for 'ninkumpoop'>
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
You can have your mustard back.
Why give a liar a chance to talk?
Idiot.
<Plonk!>
BAM
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "-maf-1029-" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
19 Jul 2005 07:58:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:19:21 -0400, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Why give a liar a chance to talk?
"Who asked for your stupid opinion?" -- guess who said that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
12 Jul 2005 07:12:23 PM |
|
|
in article w%OAe.50762$qm.35322@bignews5.bellsouth.net, bam at
mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net wrote on 7/12/05 8:50 AM:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-5C8908.23364311072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <1121056376.355199.318780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Abstinence is still the best policy, if you are in one of the risk
catagories. Can't catch anything if you aren't doing anything. It's by
far the most successful method of birth control; which is not such a
bad idea in Africa and parts of Asia. Healthier people, less people,
more food and less diseases to go around. That's a sound policy that
works and once again, the pontiff promotes life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not
to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV
can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a
widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms,
despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are
untrue.
Why would I want to believe any ***** coming out of the Vatican? With
it's stupid policies and condoms and contraception, the RCC could be
responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin.
How does that work? The Catholic Church says "don't use condoms". So who is
going to listen to that? Not a non-Catholic.
Only a Catholic listens to Catholic teaching. So what couple would listen to
the Church about not using condoms, but would not listen to the Church about
having sex outside of marriage? So how does someone who listens to the Pope
catch AIDS?
When was the last time a Pope listened to ANYONE not kissing his
*****?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
12 Jul 2005 07:17:58 PM |
|
|
"Paul Duca" <p.duca@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BEF9D4A7.96C6%p.duca@comcast.net...
in article w%OAe.50762$qm.35322@bignews5.bellsouth.net, bam at
mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net wrote on 7/12/05 8:50 AM:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-5C8908.23364311072005@news.giganews.com...
In article <1121056376.355199.318780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Abstinence is still the best policy, if you are in one of the risk
catagories. Can't catch anything if you aren't doing anything. It's by
far the most successful method of birth control; which is not such a
bad idea in Africa and parts of Asia. Healthier people, less people,
more food and less diseases to go around. That's a sound policy that
works and once again, the pontiff promotes life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not
to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV
can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a
widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms,
despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are
untrue.
Why would I want to believe any ***** coming out of the Vatican? With
it's stupid policies and condoms and contraception, the RCC could be
responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin.
How does that work? The Catholic Church says "don't use condoms". So who
is
going to listen to that? Not a non-Catholic.
Only a Catholic listens to Catholic teaching. So what couple would listen
to
the Church about not using condoms, but would not listen to the Church
about
having sex outside of marriage? So how does someone who listens to the
Pope
catch AIDS?
When was the last time a Pope listened to ANYONE not kissing his
*****?
4:30?
BAM
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
11 Jul 2005 09:56:23 AM |
|
|
In article <1121056376.355199.318780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
youngopinions@aol.com says...
Abstinence is still the best policy,
*****. It's like saying that the best policy to combat crime is just
telling people "don't do it", without any other enforcement or fallback
plan. Hey, maybe we should just fire all police officers, since the
"best policy" is just to say, "don't do it". By your logic, we don't
need a military or a war on terrorist either. Just tell people not to
do it. Certainly we don't need a war on drugs, because Nancy Reagan
already told us to "Just Say No". If the government believe that
"Obstinence Only" worked with drugs then why are they spending billions
to combat it every year by other means? Finally, even your screwball
religion doesn't believe that simply telling people "don't sin" is an
effective policy to prevent it. Maybe if Yahweh hadn't been so stupid
then he wouldn't have placed an "abstinence only" policy around the tree
of knowledge of good and evil. If he had protected it with an angel
with a flaming sword, like the one he allegedly used to keep adam and
eve from re-entering eden, then perhaps they never would have sinned to
begin with.
if you are in one of the risk
catagories. Can't catch anything if you aren't doing anything.
Doing nothing is not a policy. It's lack of a policy.
It's by
far the most successful method of birth control;
No, it is terribly ineffective because it has a massive failure rate in
terms of implementation. It's about as successful as telling people,
"don't get sick" or "don't have an accident". Certainly, your
obstinence only absolutism won't prevent women from becoming pregnant
from rape, whereas contraceptive pills would. Anyway, obstinence only
didn't seem to work to Mary, according to your own fairy tale bible.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
12 Jul 2005 05:20:46 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
*****. It's like saying that the best policy to combat crime is just
telling people "don't do it", without any other enforcement or fallback
plan.
That is the best policy. Respectable kids from two parent homes where it is
taught that breaking the law is bad tend not to commit crimes. Kids who are
brought up in unstable settings where there are few moral values do commit
crimes. Maybe by increasing prison sentences, improving surveillance,
imposing curfews, introducing "zero tolerance" policies and the like you can
suppress some of these crimes, but the truth is that it is very expensive
and none too effective. You put in bouncers to keep drugs out of the
nightclubs, and so they get passed round in school instead. Test for
cannabis and everyone is on ecstacy. The solution is to have kids who don't
want to do drugs in the first place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
12 Jul 2005 05:30:30 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:db1fnt$7et$5@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
*****. It's like saying that the best policy to combat crime is just
telling people "don't do it", without any other enforcement or fallback
plan.
That is the best policy.
To someone with your tunnel vision, yes.
Respectable kids from two parent homes where it is
taught that breaking the law is bad tend not to commit crimes.
Sex isn't a crime, except to a moron of your caliber.
snip idiotic *****>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
13 Jul 2005 09:13:37 AM |
|
|
In article <db1fnt$7et$5@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
*****. It's like saying that the best policy to combat crime is just
telling people "don't do it", without any other enforcement or fallback
plan.
That is the best policy.
No, you just haven't seriously considered the issue, if you say such
things. The best policy is to tell them to avoid committing certain
crimes and immoral acts, but to have fallback plans and
enforcement/rehabilitation because we cannot guarantee that all will
voluntarily comply. A certain percentage of people, largely going by
the moniker of republicans, seem simply too anti-social to even comply
with the laws on a regular basis.
Respectable kids from two parent homes
You have to be a moron if you really believe that the "Leave it to
Beaver" approach will guarantee that no crimes are ever committed. It's
the ridiculous fantasy of times gone by, which never really were. Ever
heard of Peyton Place?
where it is
taught that breaking the law is bad tend not to commit crimes.
Naturally, you fail utterly to back that up with data. Even if did get
off your ***** and try to do some real research, you would find that your
generalization is unreliable, at best. There will certainly be kids
from "good" families who become criminals. Even as a small percentage
of the population, that is enough to victimize the rest of society.
Kids who are
brought up in unstable settings where there are few moral values
Firstly, morals and values are different issue. A value is the basis of
a moral standard. Secondly, you can throw fifty fucking billion values
at children, but that doesn't mean that you will succeed in brainwashing
them into accepting these assertions. Unless the moral values actually
make sense and are based upon truth, then most people will ultimately
reject them, at least in practice. That's why the Ten Commandments and
most of the teachings of Jesus are often ignored, as they are
unresponsive to modern life.
do commit
crimes. Maybe by increasing prison sentences
Yet again, you betray abysmal ignorance about the actual facts, if you
think that increasing prison sentences significantly impacts deterrence
or really works to suppress crime.
, improving surveillance,
Naturally, your lack of respect for privacy rights, betrays utter
disdain for the constitution which contradicts the notion that you have
any respect for law.
imposing curfews,
So you propose the imposition of a permanent police state?
introducing "zero tolerance" policies
They don't work well to deter crime in the first place. I know that
repug idiots like you can't stand to be called fascists, largely because
you are too stupid to understand what the term means, but this kind of
attitude is expressing an authoritarianism that is completely consistent
with that draconian ethos.
and the like you can
suppress some of these crimes, but the truth is that it is very expensive
and none too effective.
You have hardly exhausted all options here. There are many ways short
of tyranny and torture to get people to behave ethically. I know that
would probably come as quite a shock to theists and all.
You put in bouncers to keep drugs out of the
nightclubs, and so they get passed round in school instead.
There's no such causal relationship. Drugs would be in schools whether
there were bars or bouncers at all.
Test for
cannabis and everyone is on ecstacy.
The testing should never be permitted for drugs in the first place.
The solution is to have kids who don't
want to do drugs in the first place.
Yes, but that can't be achieved by simply saying, "don't do it". You
have get them to actually believe it, which requires that they
understand the issues, pro and con. Just telling them that it is "evil"
or that they will "go to hell" if they use drugs, have sex, etc, is not
enough. But that's the only trick that fundamentalists have. That
simply means that we need to get fundamentalist morons and their
absolutist, "obstinence only" policies out of government.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
14 Jul 2005 02:24:28 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
The solution is to have kids who don't
want to do drugs in the first place.
Yes, but that can't be achieved by simply saying, "don't do it". You
have get them to actually believe it, which requires that they
understand the issues, pro and con. Just telling them that it is "evil"
or that they will "go to hell" if they use drugs, have sex, etc, is not
enough. But that's the only trick that fundamentalists have. That
simply means that we need to get fundamentalist morons and their
absolutist, "obstinence only" policies out of government.
If you just say "drugs are evil" that is tantamount to saying "drugs are
glamorous".
If you say "cannabis is for losers, but children of your type are winners
who get into university" then most won't use it. There are many schools
where that message is successfully sent.
The point is that prison has its place, but it is not the solution to the
causes of crime. Those are internal to the people, usually young and either
in school or just out of school, who commit most of the crimes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
14 Jul 2005 07:46:44 PM |
|
|
In article <db6e5b$n88$7@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
The solution is to have kids who don't
want to do drugs in the first place.
Yes, but that can't be achieved by simply saying, "don't do it". You
have get them to actually believe it, which requires that they
understand the issues, pro and con. Just telling them that it is "evil"
or that they will "go to hell" if they use drugs, have sex, etc, is not
enough. But that's the only trick that fundamentalists have. That
simply means that we need to get fundamentalist morons and their
absolutist, "obstinence only" policies out of government.
If you just say "drugs are evil" that is tantamount to saying "drugs are
glamorous".
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
, but children of your type are winners
who get into university"
That presumes that they honestly believe that pot is so different
that cigarettes and other licit drugs that it will prevent them from
qualifying for "university". It was tried with the "reefer
madness" campaigns, but they didn't pass the giggle test. Anyway,
considering that there are many universities with open enrollment,
it's something of a hard sell to convince them that pot is quite
that terrible. If it were as much of performance decreaser as
people claim then it would not be necessary to do separate drug
testing to detect usage. The fact that they do the testing
indicates that they can't tell the difference based upon performance
alone.
then most won't use it. There are many schools
where that message is successfully sent.
That successfully sent message is falsehood and propaganda.
The point is that prison has its place, but it is not the solution to the
causes of crime.
Agreed.
Those are internal to the people, usually young and either
in school or just out of school, who commit most of the crimes.
They're certainly one source. Older felons tend to be repeat
offenders and can become career criminals.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
14 Jul 2005 08:34:46 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d40b55e9a867f4c9896d5@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db6e5b$n88$7@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
The solution is to have kids who don't
want to do drugs in the first place.
Yes, but that can't be achieved by simply saying, "don't do it". You
have get them to actually believe it, which requires that they
understand the issues, pro and con. Just telling them that it is
"evil"
or that they will "go to hell" if they use drugs, have sex, etc, is
not
enough. But that's the only trick that fundamentalists have. That
simply means that we need to get fundamentalist morons and their
absolutist, "obstinence only" policies out of government.
If you just say "drugs are evil" that is tantamount to saying "drugs are
glamorous".
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
, but children of your type are winners
who get into university"
That presumes that they honestly believe that pot is so different
that cigarettes and other licit drugs that it will prevent them from
qualifying for "university". It was tried with the "reefer
madness" campaigns, but they didn't pass the giggle test. Anyway,
considering that there are many universities with open enrollment,
it's something of a hard sell to convince them that pot is quite
that terrible. If it were as much of performance decreaser as
people claim then it would not be necessary to do separate drug
testing to detect usage. The fact that they do the testing
indicates that they can't tell the difference based upon performance
alone.
In point of fact, pot isn't NEARLY as dangerous as booze, ESPECIALLY for
teens.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
15 Jul 2005 10:09:13 AM |
|
|
In article <QqudnUlb_sojj0rfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d40b55e9a867f4c9896d5@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db6e5b$n88$7@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
The solution is to have kids who don't
want to do drugs in the first place.
Yes, but that can't be achieved by simply saying, "don't do it". You
have get them to actually believe it, which requires that they
understand the issues, pro and con. Just telling them that it is
"evil"
or that they will "go to hell" if they use drugs, have sex, etc, is
not
enough. But that's the only trick that fundamentalists have. That
simply means that we need to get fundamentalist morons and their
absolutist, "obstinence only" policies out of government.
If you just say "drugs are evil" that is tantamount to saying "drugs are
glamorous".
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
, but children of your type are winners
who get into university"
That presumes that they honestly believe that pot is so different
that cigarettes and other licit drugs that it will prevent them from
qualifying for "university". It was tried with the "reefer
madness" campaigns, but they didn't pass the giggle test. Anyway,
considering that there are many universities with open enrollment,
it's something of a hard sell to convince them that pot is quite
that terrible. If it were as much of performance decreaser as
people claim then it would not be necessary to do separate drug
testing to detect usage. The fact that they do the testing
indicates that they can't tell the difference based upon performance
alone.
In point of fact, pot isn't NEARLY as dangerous as booze, ESPECIALLY for
teens.
Yes, if pot is a so-called "gateway" drug that leads to more serious
drug abuse later then, by their same argument, normal cigarettes are a
"gateway" to pot or crack smoking and beer is a "gateway" to hard liquor
and alcoholism. So how do they justify banning pot, but not cigs or
beer?
As far as the relative levels of danger, kids can drink too much at one
party and die hours later alcohol toxicity or end up in a coma. I've
never heard of anyone smoking too much weed and dying a few hours later
of "pot toxicity". It's true that many drugs can impair a person when
driving, but it's also true that most bars have big parking lots ;) I'm
sure that's just for the "designated driver".
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
15 Jul 2005 02:41:59 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain amount of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope of getting
decent qualifications.
, but children of your type are winners
who get into university"
The fact that they do the testing
indicates that they can't tell the difference based upon performance
alone.
It's a slow, subtle effect. Like boxing.
As far as the relative levels of danger, kids can drink too much at one
party and die hours later alcohol toxicity or end up in a coma. I've
never heard of anyone smoking too much weed and dying a few hours
later of "pot toxicity".
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take a lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately. Cigarettes, for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints tend to be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
15 Jul 2005 05:22:19 PM |
|
|
In article <db93i6$t5j$8@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain amount of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope of getting
decent qualifications.
Actually it has very little to do with socio-economics. There are
people who are genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to
addiction, but they are found in all walks of life. Take Bill Bennett,
who is a twitching gambling addict, despite all his bogus moralizing and
alleged education.
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take a lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately. Cigarettes, for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints tend to be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
Yes and whiskey or vodka is potentially more harmful than beer.
However, the law makes no accounting of that. It's very clear that
marijuana was singled out for reason that had little to do with science
or legitimate risk. At best they tried to fix the facts and spin things
at a later stage in the game to justify their arbitrary ban on pot.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 12:51:31 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d41e506f925da289897d4@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db93i6$t5j$8@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain amount
of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope of
getting
decent qualifications.
Actually it has very little to do with socio-economics. There are
people who are genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to
addiction, but they are found in all walks of life. Take Bill Bennett,
who is a twitching gambling addict, despite all his bogus moralizing and
alleged education.
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take a
lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately. Cigarettes, for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints tend to
be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
Yes and whiskey or vodka is potentially more harmful than beer.
However, the law makes no accounting of that. It's very clear that
marijuana was singled out for reason that had little to do with science
or legitimate risk. At best they tried to fix the facts and spin things
at a later stage in the game to justify their arbitrary ban on pot.
Actually, it had NOTHING to do with smoking it.
Marijuana was outlawed because at the time when William Randolph Hearst
owned most of the newspapers, he also owned most of the paper mills. He was
starting to get some competition from the hemp paper manufacturers, so he
bribed a load of congressmen to ramrod a bill through making the growing of
hemp based plants illegal.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "ۥ R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 08:38:11 AM |
|
|
In article <HdudnUOxN8XwPUXfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d41e506f925da289897d4@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db93i6$t5j$8@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain amount
of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope of
getting
decent qualifications.
Actually it has very little to do with socio-economics. There are
people who are genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to
addiction, but they are found in all walks of life. Take Bill Bennett,
who is a twitching gambling addict, despite all his bogus moralizing and
alleged education.
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take a
lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately. Cigarettes, for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints tend to
be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
Yes and whiskey or vodka is potentially more harmful than beer.
However, the law makes no accounting of that. It's very clear that
marijuana was singled out for reason that had little to do with science
or legitimate risk. At best they tried to fix the facts and spin things
at a later stage in the game to justify their arbitrary ban on pot.
Actually, it had NOTHING to do with smoking it.
Marijuana was outlawed because at the time when William Randolph Hearst
owned most of the newspapers, he also owned most of the paper mills. He was
starting to get some competition from the hemp paper manufacturers, so he
bribed a load of congressmen to ramrod a bill through making the growing of
hemp based plants illegal.
• Indeed, Mickey, and it's still illegal to grow hemp in the U. S., even
to manufacture hemp rope.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 10:27:57 AM |
|
|
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-1607050638110001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HdudnUOxN8XwPUXfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d41e506f925da289897d4@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db93i6$t5j$8@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly,
eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking
pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain
amount
of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope of
getting
decent qualifications.
Actually it has very little to do with socio-economics. There are
people who are genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to
addiction, but they are found in all walks of life. Take Bill
Bennett,
who is a twitching gambling addict, despite all his bogus moralizing
and
alleged education.
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take a
lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately. Cigarettes,
for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints tend
to
be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
Yes and whiskey or vodka is potentially more harmful than beer.
However, the law makes no accounting of that. It's very clear that
marijuana was singled out for reason that had little to do with
science
or legitimate risk. At best they tried to fix the facts and spin
things
at a later stage in the game to justify their arbitrary ban on pot.
Actually, it had NOTHING to do with smoking it.
Marijuana was outlawed because at the time when William Randolph Hearst
owned most of the newspapers, he also owned most of the paper mills. He
was
starting to get some competition from the hemp paper manufacturers, so
he
bribed a load of congressmen to ramrod a bill through making the growing
of
hemp based plants illegal.
. Indeed, Mickey, and it's still illegal to grow hemp in the U. S., even
to manufacture hemp rope.
What really gets to me is that so few people really understand the true
effects of illegalizing marijuana.
A kid gets to be 16. By this time, he/she starts to understand the basics of
law and logic. Now they see that cigarettes, which kill people in droves,
are legal. They see booze, which kills people in drove, and in MANY ways
(accidents, violence, illness) is legal. Then they see pot, which has NEVER
been directly attributed to a death, is illegal. They KNOW this doesn't make
sense. Well, if one set of laws is so completely devoid of logic and reason,
why ever would they think others are not? And so, they grow up questioning
the very logic of our legal and value system, and then people wonder why, as
adults, they are so willing to jump the fence, even at the very top of the
food chain (see Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc for further reference) and
commit crimes.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 06:50:54 PM |
|
|
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
What really gets to me is that so few people really understand the true
effects of illegalizing marijuana.
A kid gets to be 16. By this time, he/she starts to understand the basics
of
law and logic. Now they see that cigarettes, which kill people in droves,
are legal. They see booze, which kills people in drove, and in MANY ways
(accidents, violence, illness) is legal. Then they see pot, which has
NEVER
been directly attributed to a death, is illegal. They KNOW this doesn't
make
sense. Well, if one set of laws is so completely devoid of logic and
reason,
why ever would they think others are not? And so, they grow up questioning
the very logic of our legal and value system, and then people wonder why,
as
adults, they are so willing to jump the fence, even at the very top of the
food chain (see Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc for further reference) and
commit crimes.
When I was at college it functioned as a fairly harmless rebellious thing to
do. In the olden days, students weren't allowed in the pubs and proctors
used to go on anti-drinking patrols. Now of course you can get drunk every
day if you like. It used to be the case that you had to be in college by
twelve. Now students have keys. Boys didn't use to be allowed in girl's
colleges, now colleges are effectively free brothels.
So about the only way students can defy authority is to smoke joints. The
fact that it is illegal is an essential part of the social experience.
Don't take that away from them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 08:57:33 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbc6gt$b4m$10@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
What really gets to me is that so few people really understand the true
effects of illegalizing marijuana.
A kid gets to be 16. By this time, he/she starts to understand the
basics
of
law and logic. Now they see that cigarettes, which kill people in
droves,
are legal. They see booze, which kills people in drove, and in MANY ways
(accidents, violence, illness) is legal. Then they see pot, which has
NEVER
been directly attributed to a death, is illegal. They KNOW this doesn't
make
sense. Well, if one set of laws is so completely devoid of logic and
reason,
why ever would they think others are not? And so, they grow up
questioning
the very logic of our legal and value system, and then people wonder
why,
as
adults, they are so willing to jump the fence, even at the very top of
the
food chain (see Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc for further reference)
and
commit crimes.
When I was at college it functioned as a fairly harmless rebellious thing
to
do. In the olden days, students weren't allowed in the pubs and proctors
used to go on anti-drinking patrols. Now of course you can get drunk every
day if you like. It used to be the case that you had to be in college by
twelve. Now students have keys. Boys didn't use to be allowed in girl's
colleges, now colleges are effectively free brothels.
So about the only way students can defy authority is to smoke joints. The
fact that it is illegal is an essential part of the social experience.
Don't take that away from them.
The level to which this reply sinks has actually left me speechless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 09:33:59 PM |
|
|
In article <t56dnXrFzI2FJkTfRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
says...
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dbc6gt$b4m$10@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Mickey" < > wrote
What really gets to me is that so few people really understand the true
effects of illegalizing marijuana.
A kid gets to be 16. By this time, he/she starts to understand the
basics
of
law and logic. Now they see that cigarettes, which kill people in
droves,
are legal. They see booze, which kills people in drove, and in MANY ways
(accidents, violence, illness) is legal. Then they see pot, which has
NEVER
been directly attributed to a death, is illegal. They KNOW this doesn't
make
sense. Well, if one set of laws is so completely devoid of logic and
reason,
why ever would they think others are not? And so, they grow up
questioning
the very logic of our legal and value system, and then people wonder
why,
as
adults, they are so willing to jump the fence, even at the very top of
the
food chain (see Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc for further reference)
and
commit crimes.
When I was at college it functioned as a fairly harmless rebellious thing
to
do. In the olden days, students weren't allowed in the pubs and proctors
used to go on anti-drinking patrols. Now of course you can get drunk every
day if you like. It used to be the case that you had to be in college by
twelve. Now students have keys. Boys didn't use to be allowed in girl's
colleges, now colleges are effectively free brothels.
So about the only way students can defy authority is to smoke joints. The
fact that it is illegal is an essential part of the social experience.
Don't take that away from them.
The level to which this reply sinks has actually left me speechless.
It certainly oversimplifies the situation quite a bit. I suspect that
the comment about "brothels" is more symptom of cluelessness than
malice, but it was good for a laugh. Either that or maybe he believe
the load of hooey from Tom Wolff.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
16 Jul 2005 09:07:15 PM |
|
|
In article <dbc6gt$b4m$10@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
When I was at college it functioned as a fairly harmless rebellious thing to
do. In the olden days, students weren't allowed in the pubs and proctors
used to go on anti-drinking patrols.
I think that technically you are still not supposed to have booze in
your dormitories, in many cases. Of course, lots of people do and there
is little way they can find out. But occasionally someone narcs one
someone else and residence monitors can search for contraband. I'm not
saying it works that way everywhere, of course.
Now of course you can get drunk every
day if you like.
There are still sorts of unwritten rules, like about public school
teachers being expected to not go out to bars and get drunk, especially
if they teach the elementary grades. In smaller communities they often
drive out of town so people won't recognize them in the bars or liquor
stores.
It used to be the case that you had to be in college by
twelve.
They still have curfews in many places. That's one of the allures of
off-campus housing.
Now students have keys. Boys didn't use to be allowed in girl's
colleges, now colleges are effectively free brothels.
Only in the same sense that apartment buildings or high schools are
"free brothels".
So about the only way students can defy authority is to smoke joints.
It's hardly the *only* way and it's about more than just defying
authority. I don't think that people went to speak-easys during
prohibition purely to "defy authority", though that might have been a
motivation for some people. Let's not overlook the obvious possibility
that people do these things just to relax and have a good time.
The
fact that it is illegal is an essential part of the social experience.
Don't take that away from them.
Ending prohibition took away the illegal aspect, but plenty of people
still drink, despite the thrill of breaking the law being gone. In the
netherlands they also do a pretty brisk business now that many of these
substances are legal.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ۥ R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
17 Jul 2005 04:36:39 AM |
|
|
In article <luGdnaPsONoaukTfRVn-vw@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-1607050638110001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HdudnUOxN8XwPUXfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d41e506f925da289897d4@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db93i6$t5j$8@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly,
eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking
pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain
amount
of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope of
getting
decent qualifications.
Actually it has very little to do with socio-economics. There are
people who are genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to
addiction, but they are found in all walks of life. Take Bill Bennett,
who is a twitching gambling addict, despite all his bogus moralizing and
alleged education.
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take
a lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately.
Cigarettes, for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints
tend to be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
Yes and whiskey or vodka is potentially more harmful than beer.
However, the law makes no accounting of that. It's very clear that
marijuana was singled out for reason that had little to do with science
or legitimate risk. At best they tried to fix the facts and spin things
at a later stage in the game to justify their arbitrary ban on pot.
Actually, it had NOTHING to do with smoking it.
Marijuana was outlawed because at the time when William Randolph Hearst
owned most of the newspapers, he also owned most of the paper mills.
He was
starting to get some competition from the hemp paper manufacturers, so he
bribed a load of congressmen to ramrod a bill through making the
growing of
hemp based plants illegal.
. Indeed, Mickey, and it's still illegal to grow hemp in the U. S., even
to manufacture hemp rope.
What really gets to me is that so few people really understand the true
effects of illegalizing marijuana.
A kid gets to be 16. By this time, he/she starts to understand the basics of
law and logic. Now they see that cigarettes, which kill people in droves,
are legal. They see booze, which kills people in droves,
*** about 24,000 people per year in DUI motor vehicle accidents. This
makes 9-11 look insignificant
and in MANY ways
(accidents, violence, illness) is legal.
*** THC intoxication is known to have contributed to train, plane, and
motor vehicle accidents.
Then they see pot, which has NEVER
been directly attributed to a death,
*** sure, but it contributes to accidents that cause death.
is illegal. They KNOW this doesn't make
sense. Well, if one set of laws is so completely devoid of logic and reason,
why ever would they think others are not? And so, they grow up questioning
the very logic of our legal and value system, and then people wonder why, as
adults, they are so willing to jump the fence, even at the very top of the
food chain (see Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc for further reference) and
commit crimes.
*** Indeed, Mickey. For the gunamint, one problem with cannibis is that
it is so easy to grow that there is no way of taxing it.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
17 Jul 2005 09:07:45 AM |
|
|
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-1707050236390001@192.168.1.100...
In article <luGdnaPsONoaukTfRVn-vw@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-1607050638110001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HdudnUOxN8XwPUXfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d41e506f925da289897d4@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db93i6$t5j$8@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people
have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers,
scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly,
eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to
smoking
pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain
amount
of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope
of
getting
decent qualifications.
Actually it has very little to do with socio-economics. There are
people who are genetically predisposed to be more susceptible to
addiction, but they are found in all walks of life. Take Bill
Bennett,
who is a twitching gambling addict, despite all his bogus
moralizing and
alleged education.
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take
a lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately.
Cigarettes, for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints
tend to be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
Yes and whiskey or vodka is potentially more harmful than beer.
However, the law makes no accounting of that. It's very clear
that
marijuana was singled out for reason that had little to do with
science
or legitimate risk. At best they tried to fix the facts and spin
things
at a later stage in the game to justify their arbitrary ban on
pot.
Actually, it had NOTHING to do with smoking it.
Marijuana was outlawed because at the time when William Randolph
Hearst
owned most of the newspapers, he also owned most of the paper mills.
He was
starting to get some competition from the hemp paper manufacturers,
so he
bribed a load of congressmen to ramrod a bill through making the
growing of
hemp based plants illegal.
. Indeed, Mickey, and it's still illegal to grow hemp in the U. S.,
even
to manufacture hemp rope.
What really gets to me is that so few people really understand the true
effects of illegalizing marijuana.
A kid gets to be 16. By this time, he/she starts to understand the
basics of
law and logic. Now they see that cigarettes, which kill people in
droves,
are legal. They see booze, which kills people in droves,
*** about 24,000 people per year in DUI motor vehicle accidents. This
makes 9-11 look insignificant
and in MANY ways
(accidents, violence, illness) is legal.
*** THC intoxication is known to have contributed to train, plane, and
motor vehicle accidents.
Actually no. What has been found are signs of marijuana in participants, but
never has it been proven taht someone lost control of a vehicle as a direct
result of cannibis.
Then they see pot, which has NEVER
been directly attributed to a death,
*** sure, but it contributes to accidents that cause death.
I think not. People who smoke pot, when under the influence, not only don't
do the sorts of things that people do when drunk, quite to the contrary,
they tend to drive quite slowly and carefully.
is illegal. They KNOW this doesn't make
sense. Well, if one set of laws is so completely devoid of logic and
reason,
why ever would they think others are not? And so, they grow up
questioning
the very logic of our legal and value system, and then people wonder
why, as
adults, they are so willing to jump the fence, even at the very top of
the
food chain (see Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc for further reference)
and
commit crimes.
*** Indeed, Mickey. For the gunamint, one problem with cannibis is that
it is so easy to grow that there is no way of taxing it.
Oh, but what a insane argument that is. It is actually a great deal easier
to brew up a batch of hooch in your bathtub than it is to grow decent pot. I
know, I've tried both :)
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "ۥ R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
17 Jul 2005 10:16:47 AM |
|
|
In article <tbCdnVuI_Ieg-0ffRVn-hA@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-1707050236390001@192.168.1.100...
In article <luGdnaPsONoaukTfRVn-vw@comcast.com>, "Mickey"
<mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
...
What really gets to me is that so few people really understand the true
effects of illegalizing marijuana.
A kid gets to be 16. By this time, he/she starts to understand the
basics of
law and logic. Now they see that cigarettes, which kill people in
droves,
are legal. They see booze, which kills people in droves,
*** about 24,000 people per year in DUI motor vehicle accidents. This
makes 9-11 look insignificant
and in MANY ways
(accidents, violence, illness) is legal.
*** THC intoxication is known to have contributed to train, plane, and
motor vehicle accidents.
Actually no. What has been found are signs of marijuana in participants, but
never has it been proven taht someone lost control of a vehicle as a direct
result of cannibis.
*** The same argument can be made for persons with a blood alcohol
content of 0.1%. A fried of mine once argued that a drink actually helped
him drive better because it stopped his hand from trimbling on the
steering wheel.
Then they see pot, which has NEVER
been directly attributed to a death,
*** sure, but it contributes to accidents that cause death.
I think not.
*** A high-school friend of my sister's used to drive her daddy's Benz
over for a visit when she under the influence of THC and I observed that
she was not even close to being semi-alert.
People who smoke pot, when under the influence, not only don't
do the sorts of things that people do when drunk, quite to the contrary,
they tend to drive quite slowly and carefully.
*** Some drunks drive slowly.
is illegal. They KNOW this doesn't make
sense. Well, if one set of laws is so completely devoid of logic and
reason,
why ever would they think others are not? And so, they grow up questioning
the very logic of our legal and value system, and then people wonder
why, as
adults, they are so willing to jump the fence, even at the very top of the
food chain (see Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, etc for further reference) and
commit crimes.
*** Indeed, Mickey. For the gubamint, one problem with cannibis is that
it is so easy to grow that there is no way of taxing it.
Oh, but what a insane argument that is. It is actually a great deal easier
to brew up a batch of hooch in your bathtub than it is to grow decent pot. I
know, I've tried both :)
*** Tomato fertilizer and a grow light seems to do okay. There's a
plethora of info about cultivation on the internet. OTOH, producing
ethanol without fusil oil is no easy task.
cheers, Mickey
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ۥ R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
15 Jul 2005 03:26:01 PM |
|
|
In article <db93i6$t5j$8@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
If you say "cannabis is for losers
Even children can see through that. Tons of famous people have
smoked pot and not turned into losers. Writers, scientists,
presidents of the United States and even more tellingly, eminent
university professors themselves, have all admitted to smoking pot
and are not "losers" by any objective definition.
The truth is that rich children can generally survive a certain amount of
exposure to drugs. For poor children it often destroys any hope of getting
decent qualifications.
, but children of your type are winners
who get into university"
The fact that they do the testing
indicates that they can't tell the difference based upon performance
alone.
It's a slow, subtle effect. Like boxing.
As far as the relative levels of danger, kids can drink too much at one
party and die hours later alcohol toxicity or end up in a coma. I've
never heard of anyone smoking too much weed and dying a few hours
later of "pot toxicity".
One of the good things about cannabis is that it is hard to take a lethal
dose. But not all dangerous substances kill immediately. Cigarettes, for
example, only cause lung cancer after years of exposure. Joints tend to be
much more carcinogenic than straight cigs.
• good point, but joints didn't seem to affect G. W. Bush very much,
although he does seem to stumble a bit when reading post-kindergarten
material out loud.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids |
15 Jul 2005 10:22:29 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d417f81aacb5b2f9897d1@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <QqudnUlb_sojj0rfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d40b55e9a867f4c9896d5@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <db6e5b$n88$7@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
regniztar@btinternet.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
The solution is to have kids who don't
want to do drugs in the first place.
Yes, but that can't be achieved by simply saying, "don't do it".
You
have get them to actually believe it, which requires that they
understand the issues, pro and con. Just | | | | | | | | |
