| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Jasbird" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2003 04:40:03 AM |
| Object: |
Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA)
Billions
=====
1. 19.9 lost productivity of victims and incarcerated perpetrators
of drug-related crime
2. 19.2 lost legitimate production due to drug-related crime
careers
3. 18.0 Federal drug traffic control, property damage, and police,
legal, and corrections services, etc.
4. 14.6 premature deaths
5. 14.2 lost productivity due to drug-related illness
6. 10.0 healthcare expenditures
====
97.7
b) Assumptions
i. 4 & 5 above include costs due to current illegality.
Eg. AIDS, hepatitus, estimated by me to be 75% of current costs.
ii. 6 (above) includes costs due to current illegality
(50% of current costs)
iii. Legalisation will increase consumption 3-fold
c) Costs after Legalisation
Billions
=====
1. 0 Cost eliminated
2. 0 Cost eliminated
3. 0 Cost eliminated
4. 10.9 25% decrease
5. 10.6 25% decrease
6. 14.9 50% increase
====
36.5
d) Conclusion
Legalising current illegal drugs will decrease the socio-economic
costs of drugs to one third of current costs - from 97.7 billion to
just 36.5 billion.
.
|
|
| User: "Mot" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 12:36:22 PM |
|
|
In article <7n3cjvckerq3rudjr2bgdovu8ullk1j3s3@4ax.com>,
jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com says...
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA)
Billions
=====
1. 19.9 lost productivity of victims and incarcerated perpetrators
of drug-related crime
2. 19.2 lost legitimate production due to drug-related crime
careers
3. 18.0 Federal drug traffic control, property damage, and police,
legal, and corrections services, etc.
4. 14.6 premature deaths
5. 14.2 lost productivity due to drug-related illness
6. 10.0 healthcare expenditures
====
97.7
b) Assumptions
i. 4 & 5 above include costs due to current illegality.
Eg. AIDS, hepatitus, estimated by me to be 75% of current costs.
ii. 6 (above) includes costs due to current illegality
(50% of current costs)
iii. Legalisation will increase consumption 3-fold
c) Costs after Legalisation
Billions
=====
1. 0 Cost eliminated
2. 0 Cost eliminated
3. 0 Cost eliminated
4. 10.9 25% decrease
5. 10.6 25% decrease
6. 14.9 50% increase
====
36.5
d) Conclusion
Legalising current illegal drugs will decrease the socio-economic
costs of drugs to one third of current costs - from 97.7 billion to
just 36.5 billion.
Apparently you're assuming that the costs of regulating drug sales would
be offset by taxes. (Which is probably correct, actually.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Stovell" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 01:55:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:36:22 -0400 in talk.politics.drugs, Mot
<motton@whim.bat> wrote:
Apparently you're assuming that the costs of regulating drug sales would
be offset by taxes. (Which is probably correct, actually.)
It should show a profit.
The UK government estimate that legalising, regulating and taxing cannabis
would increase govt income by £1.6bn ($2.6bn, €2.3bn). That's money (well, sort
of :-)) into non-cannabis users' pockets.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-074.pdf
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jasbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 01:47:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:36:22 -0400, Mot <motton@whim.bat> wrote:
In article <7n3cjvckerq3rudjr2bgdovu8ullk1j3s3@4ax.com>,
jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com says...
d) Conclusion
Legalising current illegal drugs will decrease the socio-economic
costs of drugs to one third of current costs - from 97.7 billion to
just 36.5 billion.
Apparently you're assuming that the costs of regulating drug sales would
be offset by taxes. (Which is probably correct, actually.)
No. I assume that tax revenue would be greater than costs of
regulating drug sales. I just haven't factored in any 'benefits' from
illegal drug use - as such benefits are ethically dubious. Apart from
taxes from sales there's also income taxes from people involved in
making, selling and distributing drugs and business taxes. I've
discounted these as well.
The entire post was really just a troll - to see who would dispute the
figures. I haven't spent enough time working out what the precise
costs are and wouldn't be able to with access to the raw figures that
NIDA commissioned. But I'm confident of a positive cost-benefit
analysis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian bennett" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of currentcost. |
11 Aug 2003 01:59:45 PM |
|
|
Jasbird wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:36:22 -0400, Mot <motton@whim.bat> wrote:
In article <7n3cjvckerq3rudjr2bgdovu8ullk1j3s3@4ax.com>,
jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com says...
d) Conclusion
Legalising current illegal drugs will decrease the socio-economic
costs of drugs to one third of current costs - from 97.7 billion to
just 36.5 billion.
Apparently you're assuming that the costs of regulating drug sales would
be offset by taxes. (Which is probably correct, actually.)
No. I assume that tax revenue would be greater than costs of
regulating drug sales. I just haven't factored in any 'benefits' from
illegal drug use - as such benefits are ethically dubious. Apart from
taxes from sales there's also income taxes from people involved in
making, selling and distributing drugs and business taxes. I've
discounted these as well.
The entire post was really just a troll - to see who would dispute the
figures. I haven't spent enough time working out what the precise
costs are and wouldn't be able to with access to the raw figures that
NIDA commissioned. But I'm confident of a positive cost-benefit
analysis.
here: http://www.briancbennett.com/costs.htm
b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner
Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com
You can learn a lot from a teacher:
http://www.teachersagainstprohibition.org/
Ask these former drug warriors:
http://www.leap.cc/main.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Stovell" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 02:16:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:47:17 +0100 in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird
<jasbird#nospam#@myrealbox.com> wrote:
I just haven't factored in any 'benefits' from
illegal drug use - as such benefits are ethically dubious.
Here's one:
[GWPharm are producing cannabis-based medicines on behalf of the UK govt]
http://www.gwpharm.com/cann_ther_brai.html
[snip]
"The United States Institute of Medicine (IOM) touted cannabinoids' medical
potential as anti-oxidants in its 1999 report, "Marijuana and Medicine:
Assessing the Science Base." Researchers determined, "[B]oth THC and CBD can be
neuroprotective through their antioxidative activity; that is, they can reduce
toxic forms of oxygen that are released when cells are under stress." (9) The
IOM called cannabis' potential neuroprotective benefits the most "prominent" of
its new medical applications. (10)"
[snip]
Cannabis prohibition increases brain damage.
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Blair" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
12 Aug 2003 10:37:56 AM |
|
|
Jasbird <jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote:
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA)
Billions
=====
1. 19.9 lost productivity of victims and incarcerated perpetrators
of drug-related crime
2. 19.2 lost legitimate production due to drug-related crime
careers
3. 18.0 Federal drug traffic control, property damage, and police,
legal, and corrections services, etc.
4. 14.6 premature deaths
5. 14.2 lost productivity due to drug-related illness
6. 10.0 healthcare expenditures
====
97.7
b) Assumptions
i. 4 & 5 above include costs due to current illegality.
Eg. AIDS, hepatitus, estimated by me to be 75% of current costs.
ii. 6 (above) includes costs due to current illegality
(50% of current costs)
iii. Legalisation will increase consumption 3-fold
c) Costs after Legalisation
Billions
=====
1. 0 Cost eliminated
2. 0 Cost eliminated
3. 0 Cost eliminated
4. 10.9 25% decrease
5. 10.6 25% decrease
6. 14.9 50% increase
====
36.5
d) Conclusion
Legalising current illegal drugs will decrease the socio-economic
costs of drugs to one third of current costs - from 97.7 billion to
just 36.5 billion.
Hi,
An analysis of the "costs" of keeping or ending the prohibition of certain
drugs should note that different sectors would have different changes in
their costs. The federal and state governments would likely gain revenue
as their costs for law enforcment and prisons fell while their income
increased from taxes on drug sales.
But drug dealers and especially drug kingpins in places like Columbia
would lose money. Legalization would have a big "cost" for them.
Harder to predict the effect on small time coca and poppy farmers in
Columbia and Afghanistan. I mean small coffee farmers don't get much of
the selling price at Starbucks. But then some of them now sell "Fair
Trade Coffee" directly (well almost directly) to the American consumer.
Fair Trade Cocaine anyone?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard anom@anom" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 09:40:35 AM |
|
|
Jasbird wrote:>>
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA)
Legalize drugs that are banned and what happens? Your kid can go to the
local convenience store and get high. On his way home he's run over and
killed by some ***** also high on drugs.
The Rodney King show didn't give you any clues why doing so is a pure waste
of effort?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 02:04:35 PM |
|
|
"Mot" <motton@whim.bat> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a04c0123fe026998a39f@news.alt.net...
In article <bh5lkc02cl@enews2.newsguy.com>, anom@anom
says...
Jasbird wrote:>>
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source
NIDA)
Legalize drugs that are banned and what happens? Your
kid can go to the
local convenience store and get high. On his way home
he's run over and
killed by some ***** also high on drugs.
Legal drugs would likely be controlled the same way
alcohol is
controlled, and probably with similar pros and cons. It's
not as if
bags of weed would be displayed for sale in every corner
gas station,
available to all, as soon as it became legal. Such
thinking is very
shallow.
Alcohol is available in every corner gas station in places
like AZ and CA.
A better model for control of hard drugs would be to make
them available to people with proof of age in dedicated
state stores, much like the State Liquor Stores in Utah, but
(legally) nowhere else (unlike the case with alcohol, which
can still be bought at establishments with a liquor license
in Utah, such as bars and restaurants).
Utah's full of Mormons who don't like the effects of alcohol
on society. But they're happy to have bottled alcohol (save
for 3% beer) sold exclusively by state liquor stores, which
collect all the sales revenue, which sort of amounts to a
tax on non-Mormons to fund Mormon projects (in this case,
the revenue goes for K-12 education, and Mormons have far
more kids). Both sides have struck a deal with the devil,
but it works.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mot" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 06:00:40 PM |
|
|
In article <bh657p$a37$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com says...
"Mot" <motton@whim.bat> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a04c0123fe026998a39f@news.alt.net...
In article <bh5lkc02cl@enews2.newsguy.com>, anom@anom
says...
Jasbird wrote:>>
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source
NIDA)
Legalize drugs that are banned and what happens? Your
kid can go to the
local convenience store and get high. On his way home
he's run over and
killed by some ***** also high on drugs.
Legal drugs would likely be controlled the same way
alcohol is
controlled, and probably with similar pros and cons. It's
not as if
bags of weed would be displayed for sale in every corner
gas station,
available to all, as soon as it became legal. Such
thinking is very
shallow.
Alcohol is available in every corner gas station in places
like AZ and CA.
But it's not available to all. Youngsters get carded. Hell, I'm 32 and
I get carded. It's not like they will sell it to absolutely anybody who
walks in and wants some.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zzz" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 04:16:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:04:35 -0700, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
"Mot" <motton@whim.bat> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a04c0123fe026998a39f@news.alt.net...
In article <bh5lkc02cl@enews2.newsguy.com>, anom@anom
says...
Jasbird wrote:>>
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source
NIDA)
Legalize drugs that are banned and what happens? Your
kid can go to the
local convenience store and get high. On his way home
he's run over and
killed by some ***** also high on drugs.
Legal drugs would likely be controlled the same way
alcohol is
controlled, and probably with similar pros and cons. It's
not as if
bags of weed would be displayed for sale in every corner
gas station,
available to all, as soon as it became legal. Such
thinking is very
shallow.
Alcohol is available in every corner gas station in places
like AZ and CA.
A better model for control of hard drugs would be to make
them available to people with proof of age in dedicated
state stores, much like the State Liquor Stores in Utah, but
(legally) nowhere else (unlike the case with alcohol, which
can still be bought at establishments with a liquor license
in Utah, such as bars and restaurants).
Why do you think state-run stores are less likely to sell to minors than
private stores?
The fact is, increased enforcement since I was a minor means I get
carded almost as frequently in my 30s as I did when I was buying or
attempting to buy alcohol at state stores when I was 19 and 20.
BTW, I had about a 50% success rate of buying at state stores when I was
underage.
In some states, people are taken to jail for selling to minors.
Utah's full of Mormons who don't like the effects of alcohol
on society.
or pornography, but don't try to tell them not to marry their 14 year
old daughters.
But they're happy to have bottled alcohol (save
for 3% beer) sold exclusively by state liquor stores, which
collect all the sales revenue, which sort of amounts to a
tax on non-Mormons to fund Mormon projects (in this case,
the revenue goes for K-12 education, and Mormons have far
more kids). Both sides have struck a deal with the devil,
but it works.
Not if you're trying to get a buzz during an afternoon of skiing and
stopping off for beers between runs. Those bastards should be required
to INFORM people that they're only buying 3.2 beer.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "zzz" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 01:23:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:04:17 +0200, Eric Johnson <erj66@xs4all.nl>
On 10-08-2003 23:16, in article r3ddjvgb4e4p4r0epu4mi28r9rbtoc2udd@4ax.com,
"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote:
Utah's full of Mormons who don't like the effects of alcohol
on society.
or pornography, but don't try to tell them not to marry their 14 year
old daughters.
Propaganda alert!
The 14 year old thing is illegal and cause for excommunication from the
Mormon church.
Some weirdos in Southern Utah and Northern AZ are involved, but they are
-not- lds church members.
Okay, but up until very recently, Utah did have a pornography czar.
I forgot you went to BYU - even if it was BYU-Hawaii (IIRC).
I think most religion's a bit twisted anyway.
EJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% ofcurrent cost. |
11 Aug 2003 03:44:40 AM |
|
|
On 11-08-2003 08:23, in article p4dejvk4228ktd90tfla5gu8u1iqja3dvd@4ax.com,
"zzz" <zzz@zzz.zzz> wrote:
Okay, but up until very recently, Utah did have a pornography czar.
Yes, they have some extremists in utah.
I forgot you went to BYU - even if it was BYU-Hawaii (IIRC).
What difference does that make? The credits are directly transferable and
the diplomas are signed by the head of BYU. The Professors are also
interchangeable.
EJ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jasbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 02:24:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:04:35 -0700, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
Alcohol is available in every corner gas station in places
like AZ and CA.
A better model for control of hard drugs would be to make
them available to people with proof of age in dedicated
state stores, much like the State Liquor Stores in Utah, but
(legally) nowhere else (unlike the case with alcohol, which
can still be bought at establishments with a liquor license
in Utah, such as bars and restaurants).
That isn't going to work. The State Liquor Stores in Utah sound like
an anomaly to this British person. I think it would be easier to
legalise heroin rather than set up a State Liquor Store in most other
states. Isn't it a better idea to have a licensing system?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pete nospam Zakel" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 05:45:00 PM |
|
|
In article <3rgejvkloanr1sj2mul89m1o6f38unn9if@4ax.com> jasbird AT myrealbox DOT com writes:
That isn't going to work. The State Liquor Stores in Utah sound like
an anomaly to this British person. I think it would be easier to
legalise heroin rather than set up a State Liquor Store in most other
states. Isn't it a better idea to have a licensing system?
State liquor stores are in other states as well, but the laws aren't as
strict.
In Ohio, anything with more than 20% alcohol (40 proof) must be sold in a
state liquor store. This results in grocery stores selling half-strength
whiskeys and spirits.
I grew up in Ohio, and was amazed that I could buy full-strength whisky in
just about any corner store when I moved to California.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
Alliance: In international politics, the union of two thieves who have
their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot
separately plunder a third.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Blair" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
12 Aug 2003 10:23:31 AM |
|
|
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
Legalize drugs that are banned and what happens? Your kid can go to the
local convenience store and get high.
Hi,
As opposed to today when kids don't even have to leave school to get high?
But at least the store owner has an incentive to not sell to minors. The
drug dealer has an incentive to hook more kids.
..On his way home he's run over and
killed by some ***** also high on drugs.
As also happens today.
The Rodney King show didn't give you any clues why doing so is a pure waste
of effort?
I don't see how Rodney King enters this?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Stovell" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 04:41:56 AM |
|
|
On 10 Aug 2003 20:02:26 -0700 in talk.politics.drugs,
(Steven Douglas) wrote:
I'll bet Jasbird has never even watched the Rodney King Show. He's
probably never even heard of that great TV entertainer, the one and
only Rodney King ... and yet he wants to determine USA drug policy. I
wonder why?
Could this be because the USA forcibly exports its' drug war to other
countries? The USA has even threatened Canada with sanctions over plans to
decriminalise cannabis.
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jasbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 02:15:06 AM |
|
|
On 10 Aug 2003 20:02:26 -0700, (Steven Douglas)
wrote:
Jasbird <jasbird#nospam#@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<5hucjvoa0503luulalq11978221u1m3ib8@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 09:40:35 -0500, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
Jasbird wrote:>>
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA)
I get nervous when someone who starts a thread by spelling the word
"legalizing" as "legalising" ... and then wants to determine USA drug
policy. Hmm ...
I'm perfectly willing to determine the drug policy for the rest of the
world instead ... but the UN, supported by the USA, already does that.
If the USA is willing to keep it's nose out of my affairs I'll be
willing to keep my nose out of yours.
Are you ready to abolish those UN treaties then?
<snip>
I'll bet Jasbird has never even watched the Rodney King Show. He's
probably never even heard of that great TV entertainer, the one and
only Rodney King ... and yet he wants to determine USA drug policy. I
wonder why?
Nope - I'd be happy if the USA (and UK) would just stop trying to
determine everyone else's drug policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Stovell" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 04:43:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:15:06 GMT in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird
<jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Nope - I'd be happy if the USA (and UK) would just stop trying to
determine everyone else's drug policy.
In my opinion Tony Blair's got his tongue so deeply up Bush's ***** that he
can't speak for himself.
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Stovell" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
10 Aug 2003 10:37:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 09:40:35 -0500 in talk.politics.drugs, "Richard"
<anom@anom> wrote:
Jasbird wrote:>>
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA)
Legalize drugs that are banned and what happens? Your kid can go to the
local convenience store and get high.
The local convenience store WON'T sell to kids, as they don't for alcohol and
cigarettes. The store owner would lose his license to sell. I know it's not
perfect, and it does happen, but releasing the police from having to stop adult
consumers would free up the manpower to enforce it properly. There's a
ready-made profit in adult consumers, so why would the owner risk losing his
living, and possible jail time?
Would *you* buy heroin or cocaine if legal? I certainly wouldn't - I've had to
deal with a nicotine addiction recently, so no more, thanks.
On his way home he's run over and
killed by some ***** also high on drugs.
Straw man fallacy.
The Rodney King show didn't give you any clues why doing so is a pure waste
of effort?
I don't know what that is, so I can't comment.
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert E. Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 09:08:36 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote...
Jasbird wrote:>>
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA)
I get nervous when someone who starts a thread by spelling the word
"legalizing" as "legalising" ... and then wants to determine USA drug
policy. Hmm ...
That would be no more likely than under current circumstances as it
would be an offence to drive while intoxicated.
Jasbird spells "offense" as "offence" ... keeps sounding more foreign
(to the USA) all the time ... but he wants to determine USA drug
policy ...
The leaders of the United States not only spell words differently from the
Iraqis, but us an entirely different alphabet; and yet the US government is
determining a wide range of policies for Iraq. Silly and weak xenophobic
spelling-flame.
The Rodney King show didn't give you any clues why doing so
is a pure wasteof effort?
No. I don't think that public policy should be based in TV
entertainment.
I'll bet Jasbird has never even watched the Rodney King Show. He's
probably never even heard of that great TV entertainer, the one and
only Rodney King ... and yet he wants to determine USA drug policy. I
wonder why?
The Rodney King Show... wasn't that a spin-off of the LAPD Comedy Hour?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 10:49:44 PM |
|
|
"Robert E. Lewis" <rlewis@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote in message news:<ErNZa.1453$GW4.631403@newshog.newsread.com>...
The leaders of the United States not only spell words differently from
the Iraqis, but us an entirely different alphabet; and yet the US
government is determining a wide range of policies for Iraq. Silly
and weak xenophobic spelling-flame.
What spelling flame? His spelling is perfectly British (and by the
way, the UK and US are both in Iraq -- side by side).
If Jasbird ever desired to become a US citizen and vote here, I'd say
welcome and point him towards the Libertarian Party (they need all the
help they can get, you know).
The Rodney King Show... wasn't that a spin-off of the LAPD Comedy Hour?
[quote] "Can't we all just get along?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost. |
11 Aug 2003 11:33:43 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0308111949.2259f3c7@posting.google.com...
If Jasbird ever desired to become a US citizen and vote
here, I'd say
welcome and point him towards the Libertarian Party (they
need all the
help they can get, you know).
Don't you know it. Ahhhnold "Total Recall" Swartzenegger is
fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and he probably
doesn't even know he's more libertarian than anything else.
He just thinks he's a nice-guy Republican. Who sleeps with a
Democrat. Everybody else thinks he's a confused Republican
or a Hollywood Republican, or maybe even just an unusually
rich and stupid Republican.
Except of course for Time Magazine, who seem to think he's a
closet fascist Republican, and possibly a Nazi (many
paragraphs in this week's issue are devoted to why he's
trying hard to prove he's not a Nazi; some of his best
friends are Jews, don't you know...). From this I make my
point. That's Time's response to just about everybody to the
right of Joe Liberman. So what else is new? So sue them. By
now, everyone should know, if your values are not thoroughly
Manhattan, Time magazine finds you threatening, they do.
Like possibly one of those little Western towns New York
City people shouldn't stay in, thinking the town Sheriff by
night might be a satanist or Klansman. The further South and
West you go from NYC the more Klan controlled small towns
you find, let me tell you. You could look it up.
Enough already. I live in California, and I'm votin' for the
Terminator. He may be for gun control, but I forgive him
that. Nothing will change in California on that issue
anyway. And as for the rest of it, I think that anybody,
even a an android with an accent, is better than Gray
Throw-Away-the-Key Davis.
SBH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
