Re: King Donald
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:58:21 -0600
- From: Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: King Donald
On 2/6/2017 7:34 AM, Disaster Master wrote:
On 2/6/2017, 2:21:01 AM, Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/5/2017 12:20 PM, Disaster Master wrote:
The point is, trying to legislate morality will never, ever work the way
those who want to do it would like to believe.
Legalize all drugs, tax them like alcohol, and funnel the tax revenue
into drug treatment programs for those that want it, and you turn a huge
net negative into a hug net positive, with one, simple
philosophical/legal flip of the switch.
And a massive problem with ACTIONS.
I am not concerned with the
morality, but the idea of a guy driving one the road with while under
the influence of PCP, or Heroin isn't something we need.
So you want to outlaw books, because some crazed lunatic might be
driving down the road engrossed in the latest Harrpy Potter
misadventure? (Note: I've actually seen people driving with a book
planted in their steering wheel).
I have to, as recently as last MONTH. Pretty darn stupid.
Personally, I'm much more concerned about the morons I encounter every
day driving with their eyes fixated on their phones.
Yep, those too. Isn't that what red lights are for? Grin.
Much worse distraction in most cases - although, I do recall one time
when I was 16 or 17, driving right after doing a few lines of PCP - that
was crazy. I remember thinking I needed to slow down, but when I looked
at the speedo, I was doing about 15mph.
That said, it doesn't matter. All that is needed is one law, against
driving 'while impaired'. 'Impaired, can then be defined in the law to
include whatever you want it to include, including being high on
anything, or focusing on your phone.
Did you see
the picture of the guy the cop tasered three times and he kept coming?
Finally a bystander helped take him down. Chances are the guy was on
something like PCP that makes the taser ineffective. Pretty bad trouble
for law enforcement!
Irrelevant. True criminal actions require a damaged third party - a
victim if you will.
If someone ie getting high in their own home, there is no damaged party
(people have the right to damage themselves, so that doesn't qualify).
Except, maybe landlords who have to replace things damaged, or children
who have no control of their parents actions in their presence. When we
choose to live together, we have to accept limitations on our freedom.
Of course, they didn't need a drug charge on this guy, as he had an
armory in his trunk, and was shouting terrorist slogans.
So there ya go.
general mailing list