PDA

View Full Version : DEA AT THE ARNOLD ?


robert
November 14th 04, 11:36 PM
I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand jury
to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to find
this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
US.

I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you had
what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested for ,
steroids. I don't believe this !

Robert G Smith

robert
November 14th 04, 11:43 PM
I forgot to add if you don't answer you can be jailed for 2 years for
contempt , if you lie you get what Martha Stewart got , lying to Federal
Law Enforcement a felony. The only thing you can do is take the Fifth
Amendment but if you are given immunity and don't answer you end up in jail
also.

Robert G Smith

"robert" > wrote in message
rvers.com...
> I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
> subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand
jury
> to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to
find
> this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
> US.
>
> I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you
had
> what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
> recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested for
,
> steroids. I don't believe this !
>
> Robert G Smith
>
>

John Hanson
November 14th 04, 11:49 PM
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:36:52 -0500, "robert" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
>subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand jury
>to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to find
>this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
>US.

I heard the same thing.

>
>I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you had
>what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
>recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested for ,
>steroids. I don't believe this !
>
If it was before 1988, I don't believe it either.

John M. Williams
November 14th 04, 11:55 PM
John Hanson > wrote:
> "robert" > wrote:
>
>>I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
>>subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand jury
>>to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to find
>>this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
>>US.
>
>I heard the same thing.
>
>>I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you had
>>what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
>>recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested for ,
>>steroids. I don't believe this !
>>
>If it was before 1988, I don't believe it either.

Well, don't believe everything you hear. You can't subpoena people
for their physique. You can, however, subpoena people who other
people have testified about before a grand jury. And if there were
subpoenas served at The Arnold, it may be because the DEA knew they
would be able to find a lot of the targets there, rather than trying
to hunt them down elsewhere.

Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
are snitching out everyone they know.

robert
November 15th 04, 12:07 AM
It was after 1988.

Robert G Smith

"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:36:52 -0500, "robert" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
> >subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand
jury
> >to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to
find
> >this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
> >US.
>
> I heard the same thing.
>
> >
> >I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you
had
> >what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
> >recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested
for ,
> >steroids. I don't believe this !
> >
> If it was before 1988, I don't believe it either.
>

Vin
November 15th 04, 12:12 AM
John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
> John Hanson > wrote:
> > "robert" > wrote:
> >
> >>I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
> >>subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand
jury
> >>to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to
find
> >>this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of
the
> >>US.
> >
> >I heard the same thing.
> >
> >>I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you
had
> >>what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
> >>recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested
for ,
> >>steroids. I don't believe this !
> >>
> >If it was before 1988, I don't believe it either.
>
> Well, don't believe everything you hear. You can't subpoena people
> for their physique. You can, however, subpoena people who other
> people have testified about before a grand jury. And if there were
> subpoenas served at The Arnold, it may be because the DEA knew they
> would be able to find a lot of the targets there, rather than trying
> to hunt them down elsewhere.
>
> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
> are snitching out everyone they know.

this has been pretty well covered (this whole DEA and the bbers thang) in
Muscular Development magazine

whit

David Cohen
November 15th 04, 12:23 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote
> John Hanson > wrote:
>> "robert" > wrote:
>>>I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
>>>subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand
>>>jury
>>>to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to
>>>find
>>>this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
>>>US.
>>
>>I heard the same thing.
>>
>>>I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you
>>>had
>>>what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
>>>recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested
>>>for ,
>>>steroids. I don't believe this !
>>>
>>If it was before 1988, I don't believe it either.
>
> Well, don't believe everything you hear. You can't subpoena people
> for their physique. You can, however, subpoena people who other
> people have testified about before a grand jury. And if there were
> subpoenas served at The Arnold, it may be because the DEA knew they
> would be able to find a lot of the targets there, rather than trying
> to hunt them down elsewhere.
>
> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
> are snitching out everyone they know.

<extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to implicate
anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone else.</>

David

Bob Mann
November 15th 04, 12:36 AM
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:23:27 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>> John Hanson > wrote:
>>> "robert" > wrote:
>>>>I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
>>>>subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand
>>>>jury
>>>>to disclose where they got their steroids from. Maybe I am the last to
>>>>find
>>>>this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
>>>>US.
>>>
>>>I heard the same thing.
>>>
>>>>I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you
>>>>had
>>>>what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
>>>>recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested
>>>>for ,
>>>>steroids. I don't believe this !
>>>>
>>>If it was before 1988, I don't believe it either.
>>
>> Well, don't believe everything you hear. You can't subpoena people
>> for their physique. You can, however, subpoena people who other
>> people have testified about before a grand jury. And if there were
>> subpoenas served at The Arnold, it may be because the DEA knew they
>> would be able to find a lot of the targets there, rather than trying
>> to hunt them down elsewhere.
>>
>> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
>> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>> are snitching out everyone they know.
>
><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to implicate
>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone else.</>
>
>David
>
I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

John M. Williams
November 15th 04, 01:13 AM
"Vin" > wrote:
>
>John M. Williams > wrote:
>>
>> Well, don't believe everything you hear. You can't subpoena people
>> for their physique. You can, however, subpoena people who other
>> people have testified about before a grand jury. And if there were
>> subpoenas served at The Arnold, it may be because the DEA knew they
>> would be able to find a lot of the targets there, rather than trying
>> to hunt them down elsewhere.
>>
>> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
>> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>> are snitching out everyone they know.
>
>this has been pretty well covered (this whole DEA and the bbers thang) in
>Muscular Development magazine
>
>whit

Sorry, but I don't read the muscles comix. Glad to hear you're a big
fanboy, though. ;)

David Cohen
November 15th 04, 02:05 AM
"Bob Mann" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>>> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
>>> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>>> are snitching out everyone they know.
>>
>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>>implicate
>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>>else.</>
>>
> I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)

I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe the
Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so in
those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.

On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.

David

robert
November 15th 04, 02:15 AM
I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they cause
more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and cheats he
deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
conviction though.

Robert G Smith

"David Cohen" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Bob Mann" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >>"John M. Williams" > wrote
> >>> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
> >>> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
> >>> are snitching out everyone they know.
> >>
> >><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
> >>implicate
> >>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
> >>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
> >>else.</>
> >>
> > I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>
> I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe the
> Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so in
> those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>
> On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
> artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
>
> David
>
>

Lyle McDonald
November 15th 04, 02:20 AM
robert wrote:

> I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they cause
> more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and cheats he
> deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
> conviction though.
>
> Robert G Smith
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>"Bob Mann" > wrote
>>
>>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
>>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
>>>>
>>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>>>>implicate
>>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>>>>else.</>
>>>>
>>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>>
>>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe the
>>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so in
>>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>>
>>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
>>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
>>
>>David

For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
from and go from there.

The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
are 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.

Lyle

As Straight As Tom Cruise
November 15th 04, 02:36 AM
>From: Lyle McDonald
>Date: 11/14/2004 6:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>robert wrote:
>
>> I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they cause
>> more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and cheats he
>> deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
>> conviction though.
>>
>> Robert G Smith
>>
>> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>
>>>"Bob Mann" > wrote
>>>
>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
>>>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>>>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
>>>>>
>>>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>>>>>implicate
>>>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>>>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>>>>>else.</>
>>>>>
>>>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>>>
>>>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe the
>>>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so in
>>>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
>>>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
>>>
>>>David
>
>For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
>actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
>from and go from there.<<

That's a typically stoopid Lyleism. Far better to look at what the English word
"immoral" actually means:

immoral

adj. 1: violating principles of right and wrong [ant: moral, amoral] 2: not
adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a
base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered
colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" [syn:
base, dishonorable, dishonourable, unethical] 3: morally unprincipled; "immoral
behavior" 4: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life"
[syn: bad] 5: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or
proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the
reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved, perverse,
perverted, reprobate]

Yep, drug prohibition certainly is immoral.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
"All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All mankind
shall grovel at my feet and not know why!"
--L. Ron Hubbard--

Vin
November 15th 04, 05:17 AM
John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
> "Vin" > wrote:
> >
> >John M. Williams > wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, don't believe everything you hear. You can't subpoena people
> >> for their physique. You can, however, subpoena people who other
> >> people have testified about before a grand jury. And if there were
> >> subpoenas served at The Arnold, it may be because the DEA knew they
> >> would be able to find a lot of the targets there, rather than trying
> >> to hunt them down elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
> >> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
> >> are snitching out everyone they know.
> >
> >this has been pretty well covered (this whole DEA and the bbers thang) in
> >Muscular Development magazine
> >
> >whit
>
> Sorry, but I don't read the muscles comix. Glad to hear you're a big
> fanboy, though. ;)

sure. i just know not to read them for workout advice. the pics are great,
some of the columns are very funny, and i really enjoy MD. it is BY FAR the
most un-pc and straight up mag out there in regards to the whole bbing
culture. your bud rick collins writes for 'em.

it aint milo, that's fer shure

whit

Vin
November 15th 04, 05:21 AM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in message
...
> robert wrote:
>
> > I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
cause
> > more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and cheats
he
> > deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
> > conviction though.
> >
> > Robert G Smith
> >
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>"Bob Mann" > wrote
> >>
> >>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever
since
> >>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
> >>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
> >>>>
> >>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
> >>>>implicate
> >>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
> >>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
> >>>>else.</>
> >>>>
> >>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
> >>
> >>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe
the
> >>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so
in
> >>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
> >>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
> >>
> >>David
>
> For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
> actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
> from and go from there.
>
> The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
> are 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.
>
> Lyle
>

i have to agree with lyle. merely because (many of them) may be bad policy,
does not make them immoral

some of them ARE good policy. for example, crystal meth should be illegal.

but anybody who wants to do meth should have the option of entering an
"escape from new york" type private guarded island where they can take care
of their own problems, as long as they are sterilized first. it would be
cheaper, and it would mean i wouldn't have to look at yellow skinned, tooth
missin' meth addicted pregnant hags on too many occasions.

seriously, i wouldn't mind if we registered drug users like england does.
but if they want ot be registered, they should be sterilized. nobody should
be allowed to get pregnant or give birth while on meth... or heroin.



whit

David Cohen
November 15th 04, 05:58 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> robert wrote:
>> I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
>> cause
>> more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and cheats
>> he
>> deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
>> conviction though.
>>
>> Robert G Smith
>>
>> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>
>>>"Bob Mann" > wrote
>>>
>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
>>>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>>>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
>>>>>
>>>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>>>>>implicate
>>>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>>>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>>>>>else.</>
>>>>>
>>>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>>>
>>>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe the
>>>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so
>>>in
>>>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
>>>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
>>>
>>>David
>
> For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
> actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives from
> and go from there.
>
> The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they are
> 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.

Being in mourning for your leader is no excuse for bull****. For the
Government, following instructions of the Governed, to imprison, by force,
persons who cause harm only to themselves, is immoral

\Im*mor"al\, a. [Pref. im- not + moral: cf. F. immoral.] Not moral;
inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to conscience
or the divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious; licentious; as, an
immoral man; an immoral deed.

Syn: Wicked; sinful; criminal; vicious; unjust; dishonest; depraved; impure;
unchaste; profligate; dissolute; abandoned; licentious; lewd; obscene.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabidged Dictionary

Laws that protect people from themselves are "wicked" and "unjust". You may
disagree, but to quibble with the definition of "immoral" is...uh, wait, let
me look up a word..."asinine".

David

Proton Soup
November 15th 04, 06:01 AM
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:21:01 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:

>
>Lyle McDonald > wrote in message
...
>> robert wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
>cause
>> > more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and cheats
>he
>> > deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
>> > conviction though.
>> >
>> > Robert G Smith
>> >
>> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
>> > hlink.net...
>> >
>> >>"Bob Mann" > wrote
>> >>
>> >>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever
>since
>> >>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>> >>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
>> >>>>
>> >>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>> >>>>implicate
>> >>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>> >>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>> >>>>else.</>
>> >>>>
>> >>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>> >>
>> >>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe
>the
>> >>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so
>in
>> >>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>> >>
>> >>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
>> >>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
>> >>
>> >>David
>>
>> For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
>> actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
>> from and go from there.
>>
>> The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
>> are 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.
>>
>> Lyle
>>
>
>i have to agree with lyle. merely because (many of them) may be bad policy,
>does not make them immoral
>
>some of them ARE good policy. for example, crystal meth should be illegal.

Do you really cut down on usage that much by making it illegal? Maybe
it would be sufficient to just reclassify the drug so that it can't be
marketed as a weight-loss supplement.

>but anybody who wants to do meth should have the option of entering an
>"escape from new york" type private guarded island where they can take care
>of their own problems, as long as they are sterilized first. it would be
>cheaper, and it would mean i wouldn't have to look at yellow skinned, tooth
>missin' meth addicted pregnant hags on too many occasions.
>
>seriously, i wouldn't mind if we registered drug users like england does.
>but if they want ot be registered, they should be sterilized. nobody should
>be allowed to get pregnant or give birth while on meth... or heroin.

Why not just build birth control into the product?

Or alternatively, restore the rights of the fetus so that you can lock
up drug-addicted mothers.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

David Cohen
November 15th 04, 06:20 AM
"Vin" > wrote
> Lyle McDonald > wrote
>> robert wrote:
>> > I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
> cause
>> > more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and
>> > cheats
> he
>> > deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
>> > conviction though.
>> >
>> > "David Cohen" > wrote
>> >>"Bob Mann" > wrote
>> >>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>> >>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>> >>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever
> since
>> >>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>> >>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
>> >>>>
>> >>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>> >>>>implicate
>> >>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>> >>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>> >>>>else.</>
>> >>>>
>> >>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>> >>
>> >>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe
> the
>> >>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so
> in
>> >>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>> >>
>> >>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
>> >>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
>>
>> For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
>> actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
>> from and go from there.
>>
>> The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
>> are 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.
>>
> i have to agree with lyle. merely because (many of them) may be bad
> policy,
> does not make them immoral

Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want to
call a law that allows immorality.

> some of them ARE good policy. for example, crystal meth should be illegal.

No. Only actions performed while under the influence of crystal meth which
cause harm to others should be illegal. And punished without regard to the
defense of "I was drunk/stoned/drugged and didn't know what I was doing."
>
> but anybody who wants to do meth should have the option of entering an
> "escape from new york" type private guarded island where they can take
> care
> of their own problems, as long as they are sterilized first. it would be
> cheaper, and it would mean i wouldn't have to look at yellow skinned,
> tooth
> missin' meth addicted pregnant hags on too many occasions.

In a fully just society, "yellow skinned, tooth missin' meth addicted
pregnant hags" would receive ZERO tax dollars, except to pay for the prison
cell resulting from their harm to others, not the harm to themselves.
>
> seriously, i wouldn't mind if we registered drug users like england does.
> but if they want ot be registered, they should be sterilized. nobody
> should
> be allowed to get pregnant or give birth while on meth... or heroin.

They should be "allowed", as the Government has no MORAL right (does
capitalizing it **** Lyle off more?) to "disallow" it. But you and I should
not be paying for it.

Society is in one big codependent relationship with the shallow end of the
gene pool. We, you and I, the non-parasitic members of society, are
providing food, clothing, housing, medical care and access to education for
leeches that are multiplying faster than the productive members of society.
This will, eventually, cause the destruction of this society. It will occur
slower under the Republicans, but will occur never-the-less. I see no long
term solution that a majority of US citizens will accept.

Well, that was depressing. Thanks.

David

Rural living is good living
November 15th 04, 06:41 AM
>They are immoral because they cause
>more severe problems than they cure.

I don't see your logic but I agree with your end thought. If you think people
own their own bodies, than yes, the drugs laws are immoral (because drug laws
asume that the government owns us and should control our private actions).
However, if someone honestly thought that people must do everything that their
government tells them (even when it only involves private things done by
adults) than drug laws could seem moral.

The question is, do you own your body?
See Give Me A Break by John Stossel or The Ten Things You Can't Say In America
by Larry Elders.
_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

spodosaurus
November 15th 04, 08:59 AM
DZ wrote:
> Vin > wrote:
>
>>seriously, i wouldn't mind if we registered drug users like england
>>does. but if they want ot be registered, they should be sterilized.
>>nobody should be allowed to get pregnant or give birth while on
>>meth... or heroin.
>
>
> What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
> alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
> conception will increase risk of birth defects.

Not really.





--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

robert
November 15th 04, 02:56 PM
I am sorry but I beg to differ. Look at the Dutch model for dealing with
drugs as a public health problem. And of coarse we have the hypocritical
situation in the US on liquor and tobacco. With out being impolite your
thinking allows people to drink & smoke themselves to death. The woman who
has my hart is drinking herself to death and it's every bit as ugly as
killing yourself with illegal drugs although this woman mixes pills with
liquor and smokes tobacco too. The whole situation is so tragic ! VERY
VERY SAD !

Robert G Smith

"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> robert wrote:
>
> > I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
cause
> > more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and cheats
he
> > deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
> > conviction though.
> >
> > Robert G Smith
> >
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>"Bob Mann" > wrote
> >>
> >>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever
since
> >>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
> >>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
> >>>>
> >>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
> >>>>implicate
> >>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
> >>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
> >>>>else.</>
> >>>>
> >>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
> >>
> >>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe
the
> >>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so
in
> >>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
> >>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
> >>
> >>David
>
> For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
> actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
> from and go from there.
>
> The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
> are 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.
>
> Lyle
>

robert
November 15th 04, 03:06 PM
The drug laws are impractical with the current situation and the solution
now has brought the worse result as possible. Costs are in the out to pluto
from paying police , lawyers , courts and judges , prison costs and medical
expenses which are paid by us the tax and insurance paying public.

Robert G Smith


"David Cohen" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote
> > robert wrote:
> >> I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
> >> cause
> >> more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and
cheats
> >> he
> >> deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
> >> conviction though.
> >>
> >> Robert G Smith
> >>
> >> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> >> hlink.net...
> >>
> >>>"Bob Mann" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever
since
> >>>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
> >>>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
> >>>>>implicate
> >>>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
> >>>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
> >>>>>else.</>
> >>>>>
> >>>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
> >>>
> >>>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe
the
> >>>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so
> >>>in
> >>>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
> >>>
> >>>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
> >>>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
> >>>
> >>>David
> >
> > For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
> > actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
from
> > and go from there.
> >
> > The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
are
> > 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.
>
> Being in mourning for your leader is no excuse for bull****. For the
> Government, following instructions of the Governed, to imprison, by force,
> persons who cause harm only to themselves, is immoral
>
> \Im*mor"al\, a. [Pref. im- not + moral: cf. F. immoral.] Not moral;
> inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to
conscience
> or the divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious; licentious; as, an
> immoral man; an immoral deed.
>
> Syn: Wicked; sinful; criminal; vicious; unjust; dishonest; depraved;
impure;
> unchaste; profligate; dissolute; abandoned; licentious; lewd; obscene.
>
> Source: Webster's Revised Unabidged Dictionary
>
> Laws that protect people from themselves are "wicked" and "unjust". You
may
> disagree, but to quibble with the definition of "immoral" is...uh, wait,
let
> me look up a word..."asinine".
>
> David
>
>

David Cohen
November 15th 04, 04:17 PM
"robert" > wrote
>I am sorry but I beg to differ. Look at the Dutch model for dealing with
> drugs as a public health problem. And of coarse we have the hypocritical
> situation in the US on liquor and tobacco. With out being impolite your
> thinking allows people to drink & smoke themselves to death. The woman
> who
> has my hart is drinking herself to death and it's every bit as ugly as
> killing yourself with illegal drugs although this woman mixes pills with
> liquor and smokes tobacco too. The whole situation is so tragic ! VERY
> VERY SAD !

Possibly I was not clear, Lyle's semantic quibbling aside. I do not oppose
drug laws because they are ineffective, costly, harmful, hypocritical, etc.
I oppose ANY law that punishes consenting adults for any behavior that harms
themselves. Any such law is IMMORAL.

Stealing the money of productive members of society to pay for the
consequences to the individual of such behavior is equally IMMORAL.

David

>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote>> robert wrote:
>> > I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
> cause
>> > more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and
>> > cheats
> he
>> > deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
>> > conviction though.
>> >
>> > "David Cohen" > wrote
>> >>"Bob Mann" > wrote
>> >>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>> >>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>> >>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever
> since
>> >>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>> >>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
>> >>>>
>> >>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>> >>>>implicate
>> >>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>> >>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>> >>>>else.</>
>> >>>>
>> >>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>> >>
>> >>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe
> the
>> >>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs, so
> in
>> >>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>> >>
>> >>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
>> >>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for him.
>>
>> For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
>> actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
>> from and go from there.
>>
>> The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
>> are 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.

Adam Fahy
November 15th 04, 05:06 PM
David Cohen wrote:

> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want to
> call a law that allows immorality.

Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just imprisonment
of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a different
question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession, and
distribution, are both different from use, also different from
intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...


-Adam

Lee Michaels
November 15th 04, 05:22 PM
"Adam Fahy" wrote

> David Cohen wrote:
>
> > Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
> > themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want to
> > call a law that allows immorality.
>
> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just imprisonment
> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a different
> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession, and
> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
>
>
The old drug debate. OK, here is a thought. I do a lot of biz research.
And I often have to review biz and tax laws and regs.

One conclusion I have come to, and I am being a bit cynical here, is that
making money in this country is AN ILLEGAL ACT!!

..The old argument that it will be OK to decriminalize or leagalize certain
substances but still throw the dealers in jail is ultimate hypocrisy. We
are saying that if you have it, you are OK. But anybody help you get it, we
throw them in jail.

Now I am not a legal expert, but it seems a bit like New York City not
prosecuting a self defense killing, but throwing them in jail for having a
weapon. It is legal to die, but not to defend yourself. Just a bit
hypocritical if you ask me.

If the substance is legal, it is legal. Sell it at the local pharmacy.

But that is far too rational and sensible. The church folks and politicians
want to hurt as many people as possible. It would be unrealistic to have
them admit mistakes or stop throwing people in jail.

But we hate folks who make money in this country. And we treat all
businesses as illegal (almost). No reason to believe that a sensible
alternative (in relation to drugs) will be created with the puritans in
charge.

Lee Michaels

David Cohen
November 15th 04, 05:45 PM
"Adam Fahy" > wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
>
>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want to
>> call a law that allows immorality.
>
> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just imprisonment
> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a different
> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession, and
> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...

It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life scum
sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs, would be
engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I say is a
defense of said scum.

However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a consenting
adult is immoral. If drug use by consenting adults was legal, that "usual
collection" would be getting arrested, convicted and imprisoned for other
things. Apu, and his wife Meena, and the kids Raj and Sheeva, down at the
corner grocery store, would be selling the drugs.

David

Lurker
November 15th 04, 05:53 PM
Rural living is good living wrote:
<SNIP>
> _______
> "They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
> on a Gold's Gym policy.
>

Since you still have that in your sig line I thought that you might
want an update. I haven't been called to be harassed into my PT
appoitments yet. I have however been talking to one of the guys that
works there on a regular basis after my Saturday and Sunday sessions.
When I explained my situation to him he said he completely understood
why I wouldn't want to give up an hour of *my* gym time for their sales
pitch. Then he explained to me that the folks that work there get paid
extra for doing the first two "free" PT sessions and that was why the
girl had been such a pain about it.

After some discussing we decided that I would come in and let him take
my body measurements and bs for a little while on Tuesday (a normal rest
day for me). This will keep me from getting hounded by the cardio bunny
trainers and will make him a little extra cash. Then six months from now
I will have him do it again to see how/if my measurements have changed.
So I get something useful out of it. Measurements taken at six month
intervals. And he gets a few extra bucks. I guess I found a way to take
advantage of it after all.

Lurker

PS he also said that if something comes up and I can't make it to just
call and he won't charge me the $15 for a no show.

robert
November 15th 04, 09:25 PM
You have a point in saying if God were really against something why would he
give us the ability to perform said act ?

Robert G Smith

"Rural living is good living" > wrote in
message ...
> >some of them ARE good policy. for example, crystal meth should be
illegal.
>
> That's right. You are God and should control private actions by
consenting
> adults. Please control me, oh great one.
> _______
> "They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by
Lurker
> on a Gold's Gym policy.
>
> Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life,
family,
> and property?
> Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

David Cohen
November 15th 04, 10:16 PM
"robert" > wrote
> You have a point in saying if God were really against something why would
> he
> give us the ability to perform said act ?

She's an evil, sadistic, *******?

David

> "Rural living is good living" > wrote
>> >some of them ARE good policy. for example, crystal meth should be
> illegal.
>>
>> That's right. You are God and should control private actions by
> consenting
>> adults. Please control me, oh great one.

spodosaurus
November 16th 04, 12:38 AM
DZ wrote:
> spodosaurus > wrote:
>
>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>
>>Not really.
>
>
> I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>
> Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
> contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.

One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
just keep crapping on.



--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

DZ
November 16th 04, 01:57 AM
spodosaurus > wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> spodosaurus > wrote:
>>
>>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>>
>>>Not really.
>>
>> I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>>
>> Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>> contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.
>
> One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
> risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
> balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
> about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
> just keep crapping on.

Is this supposed to be offensive? But do read below.

"In conclusion, we found that both male and female alcohol intakes
during the week of conception increased the risk of spontaneous
abortion, including biochemically detected pregnancy loss".

- American Journal of Epidemiology (2004) 160: 661-667

Two important points:

1) They studied specifcally the effect of alcohol intake just around
the conception. Alcohol intake reported at the study entry was not
associated with increase in spontaneous abortion.

2) There was not only female but a substantial male effect: 3 times
increase in risk (for 1 to 4 drinks per week) to 5 (for 10 or more)
times increase in risk.

"If even small amounts of alcohol affect the conceptus and its
survival immediately after the implantation, this may explain the male
effect since seminal fluid has an alcohol content similar to what is
found in blood".

DZ

spodosaurus
November 16th 04, 02:20 AM
DZ wrote:
> spodosaurus > wrote:
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>
>>>spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>>>
>>>>Not really.
>>>
>>>I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>>>
>>>Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>>>contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.
>>
>>One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
>>risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
>>balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
>>about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
>>just keep crapping on.
>
>
> Is this supposed to be offensive? But do read below.
>
> "In conclusion, we found that both male and female alcohol intakes
> during the week of conception increased the risk of spontaneous
> abortion, including biochemically detected pregnancy loss".
>

Spontaneous abortion is Not a birth defect!!!!!!! Do you even understand
the terms you're using, or is it all the art of cut and paste? You still
don't understand the difference between a bacteria (ie- yersinia pestis
or pneumonic plague) and a virus! Go and actually read a book, your
google searching is not enough to help you understand what the hell
you're talking about.


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

elzinator
November 16th 04, 03:22 AM
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:17:23 GMT, Vin wrote:
>
>John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
>> "Vin" > wrote:
>> >
>> >John M. Williams > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well, don't believe everything you hear. You can't subpoena people
>> >> for their physique. You can, however, subpoena people who other
>> >> people have testified about before a grand jury. And if there were
>> >> subpoenas served at The Arnold, it may be because the DEA knew they
>> >> would be able to find a lot of the targets there, rather than trying
>> >> to hunt them down elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever since
>> >> the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>> >> are snitching out everyone they know.
>> >
>> >this has been pretty well covered (this whole DEA and the bbers thang) in
>> >Muscular Development magazine
>> >
>> >whit
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't read the muscles comix. Glad to hear you're a big
>> fanboy, though. ;)
>
>sure. i just know not to read them for workout advice. the pics are great,
>some of the columns are very funny, and i really enjoy MD. it is BY FAR the
>most un-pc and straight up mag out there in regards to the whole bbing
>culture. your bud rick collins writes for 'em.

The audience is Rick's clientele base. Of course.

>it aint milo, that's fer shure

Milo is preferable in my opinion. But it does depend on what you want
to read, or not see, such as the case may be.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 16th 04, 03:28 AM
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:28:04 GMT, DZ wrote:
>Vin > wrote:
>> seriously, i wouldn't mind if we registered drug users like england
>> does. but if they want ot be registered, they should be sterilized.
>> nobody should be allowed to get pregnant or give birth while on
>> meth... or heroin.
>
>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>
>So is age of over 40, including males.

I suspect it is defined as the line between the right of the
individual and the 'people'. Even that line tends to stray over a
range depending on the changing political and social climate. I
believe that is what our govt was based on: democracy based on the
vote by the people.

How do we convince people to take responsibility for their own
actions? Is it up to us, or themselves?

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 16th 04, 03:33 AM
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:52:03 GMT, DZ wrote:
>spodosaurus > wrote:
>>> What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>> alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>> conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>
>Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>contradicts your comforting beliefs.

I like that. I could have used that pre-election.......

>BTW, did you know that in some mammals retroviruses can be transmitted
>by insect bites? Check this out:
>
>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/pub_aheia04.pdf

Yup, Did you know that Trypanosomes can be transmitted in utero?
(vertical transmission)


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 16th 04, 03:37 AM
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 01:57:17 GMT, DZ wrote:
>spodosaurus > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>>>
>>>>Not really.
>>>
>>> I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>>>
>>> Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>>> contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.
>>
>> One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
>> risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
>> balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
>> about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
>> just keep crapping on.
>
>Is this supposed to be offensive? But do read below.
>
>"In conclusion, we found that both male and female alcohol intakes
>during the week of conception increased the risk of spontaneous
>abortion, including biochemically detected pregnancy loss".
>
>- American Journal of Epidemiology (2004) 160: 661-667
>
>Two important points:
>
>1) They studied specifcally the effect of alcohol intake just around
>the conception. Alcohol intake reported at the study entry was not
>associated with increase in spontaneous abortion.
>
>2) There was not only female but a substantial male effect: 3 times
>increase in risk (for 1 to 4 drinks per week) to 5 (for 10 or more)
>times increase in risk.
>
>"If even small amounts of alcohol affect the conceptus and its
>survival immediately after the implantation, this may explain the male
>effect since seminal fluid has an alcohol content similar to what is
>found in blood".

Interesting. Any comments on proposed mechanisms?

Regardless, did it address the observation that a large number of
conceptions occur due to the anti-inhibition effects of alcohol?

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

John M. Williams
November 16th 04, 04:38 AM
spodosaurus > wrote:
>DZ wrote:
>> spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>DZ wrote:
>>>>spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not really.
>>>>
>>>>I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>>>>
>>>>Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>>>>contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.
>>>
>>>One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
>>>risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
>>>balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
>>>about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
>>>just keep crapping on.
>>
>>
>> Is this supposed to be offensive? But do read below.
>>
>> "In conclusion, we found that both male and female alcohol intakes
>> during the week of conception increased the risk of spontaneous
>> abortion, including biochemically detected pregnancy loss".
>
>Spontaneous abortion is Not a birth defect!!!!!!! Do you even understand
>the terms you're using, or is it all the art of cut and paste? You still
>don't understand the difference between a bacteria (ie- yersinia pestis
>or pneumonic plague) and a virus! Go and actually read a book, your
>google searching is not enough to help you understand what the hell
>you're talking about.

Well, Ari, my research indicates that he has co-authored more than a
dozen articles on population genetics in respected scientific
journals. That doesn't sound to me like someone who just Googles
random comments and doesn't know the difference between a bacteria and
a virus.

Decorum
November 16th 04, 05:22 AM
"DZ" > wrote in message
.. .
> spodosaurus > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>>>
>>>>Not really.
>>>
>>> I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>>>
>>> Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>>> contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.
>>
>> One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
>> risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
>> balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
>> about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
>> just keep crapping on.
>
> Is this supposed to be offensive? But do read below.
>
> "In conclusion, we found that both male and female alcohol intakes
> during the week of conception increased the risk of spontaneous
> abortion, including biochemically detected pregnancy loss".
>
> - American Journal of Epidemiology (2004) 160: 661-667
>
> Two important points:
>
> 1) They studied specifcally the effect of alcohol intake just around
> the conception. Alcohol intake reported at the study entry was not
> associated with increase in spontaneous abortion.
>
> 2) There was not only female but a substantial male effect: 3 times
> increase in risk (for 1 to 4 drinks per week) to 5 (for 10 or more)
> times increase in risk.
>
> "If even small amounts of alcohol affect the conceptus and its
> survival immediately after the implantation, this may explain the male
> effect since seminal fluid has an alcohol content similar to what is
> found in blood".
>
> DZ

this study should be forwarded to college students.

if (yeah, right... if. WHEN) you are having unprotected sex, get as drunk
as possible, because it decreases the risk of pregnancy

otoh, that's what college students ALREADY do, just not for that reason

whit

Decorum
November 16th 04, 05:26 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Adam Fahy" > wrote
>> David Cohen wrote:
>>
>>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
>>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want to
>>> call a law that allows immorality.
>>
>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just imprisonment
>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a different
>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession, and
>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
>
> It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
> manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life scum
> sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs, would
> be engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I say
> is a defense of said scum.
>
> However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a consenting
> adult is immoral.

it's bad policy (in the case of some drugs. ) it's not "immoral".

in the case of some drugs, like PCP, do you honestly think selling PCP and
the like should NOT be punishable?

or is it merely the imprisonment aspect that is bad, and it should instead
result in house arrest, or something?

whit

If drug use by consenting adults was legal, that "usual
> collection" would be getting arrested, convicted and imprisoned for other
> things. Apu, and his wife Meena, and the kids Raj and Sheeva, down at the
> corner grocery store, would be selling the drugs.
>
> David
>

Decorum
November 16th 04, 05:28 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...
>
> "Adam Fahy" wrote
>
>> David Cohen wrote:
>>
>> > Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
>> > themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want
>> > to
>> > call a law that allows immorality.
>>
>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just imprisonment
>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a different
>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession, and
>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
>>
>>
> The old drug debate. OK, here is a thought. I do a lot of biz research.
> And I often have to review biz and tax laws and regs.
>
> One conclusion I have come to, and I am being a bit cynical here, is that
> making money in this country is AN ILLEGAL ACT!!
>
> .The old argument that it will be OK to decriminalize or leagalize certain
> substances but still throw the dealers in jail is ultimate hypocrisy. We
> are saying that if you have it, you are OK. But anybody help you get it,
> we
> throw them in jail.
>
> Now I am not a legal expert, but it seems a bit like New York City not
> prosecuting a self defense killing, but throwing them in jail for having a
> weapon. It is legal to die, but not to defend yourself. Just a bit
> hypocritical if you ask me.
>
> If the substance is legal, it is legal. Sell it at the local pharmacy.
>
> But that is far too rational and sensible. The church folks and
> politicians
> want to hurt as many people as possible. It would be unrealistic to have
> them admit mistakes or stop throwing people in jail.
>
> But we hate folks who make money in this country. And we treat all
> businesses as illegal (almost). No reason to believe that a sensible
> alternative (in relation to drugs) will be created with the puritans in
> charge.
>

that's a bunch of histrionic nonsense. we do not have "puritans" in charge.
if we had REAL puritans in charge, or anything close to that, you'd darn
well know it. i think much of the drug war is ill advised, but we are
hardly a puritanical nation

try watching cable tv, going to a nightclub, going to a frat party, watching
animal house (a repub staple), going to a strip club, etc. and claim this
country is "puritanical". i suggest that a weekend in saudi arabia would
give you some needed perspective

not to mention that any nation that celebrates alcohol is hardly
puritanical.

and BOY do we celebrate alcohol

whit

> Lee Michaels
>
>
>

Decorum
November 16th 04, 05:30 AM
"robert" > wrote in message
ervers.com...
> You have a point in saying if God were really against something why would
> he
> give us the ability to perform said act ?
>
> Robert G Smith
>

that's nonsense. if you are going to make the "god argument" then realize
that god gave us freedom of choice to transcend and act above and beyond our
base instincts

if we acted only in regards to ability (and desire) all men would do is
watch tv, fart, have sex, eat, and sleep

wait a minute...

whit

> "Rural living is good living" > wrote in
> message ...
>> >some of them ARE good policy. for example, crystal meth should be
> illegal.
>>
>> That's right. You are God and should control private actions by
> consenting
>> adults. Please control me, oh great one.
>> _______
>> "They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by
> Lurker
>> on a Gold's Gym policy.
>>
>> Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life,
> family,
>> and property?
>> Visit http://www.freestateproject.com
>
>

Decorum
November 16th 04, 05:31 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "robert" > wrote
>>I am sorry but I beg to differ. Look at the Dutch model for dealing with
>> drugs as a public health problem. And of coarse we have the hypocritical
>> situation in the US on liquor and tobacco. With out being impolite your
>> thinking allows people to drink & smoke themselves to death. The woman
>> who
>> has my hart is drinking herself to death and it's every bit as ugly as
>> killing yourself with illegal drugs although this woman mixes pills with
>> liquor and smokes tobacco too. The whole situation is so tragic ! VERY
>> VERY SAD !
>
> Possibly I was not clear, Lyle's semantic quibbling aside. I do not oppose
> drug laws because they are ineffective, costly, harmful, hypocritical,
> etc. I oppose ANY law that punishes consenting adults for any behavior
> that harms themselves. Any such law is IMMORAL.
>
> Stealing the money of productive members of society to pay for the
> consequences to the individual of such behavior is equally IMMORAL.
>

it's not immoral. it's arguably bad policy

you need to understand the difference.

criminalizing marijuana (Which i still would not smoke if it was legal)?
bad policy

curling in the squat rack? IMMORAL

hth

whit

> David
>
>>
>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote>> robert wrote:
>>> > I agree with you about the drug laws. They are immoral because they
>> cause
>>> > more severe problems than they cure. If Victor steals , lies and
>>> > cheats
>> he
>>> > deserves whatever justice our system administers. I'll wait for his
>>> > conviction though.
>>> >
>>> > "David Cohen" > wrote
>>> >>"Bob Mann" > wrote
>>> >>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>> >>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>>> >>>>>Keep in mind that grand jury proceedings have been going on ever
>> since
>>> >>>>>the Victor Conte investigation started, and I'm sure lots of people
>>> >>>>>are snitching out everyone they know.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>><extreme sarcasm> Well, at least Victor held tough and refused to
>>> >>>>implicate
>>> >>>>anyone else. He stood up like the man we all knew he was and did the
>>> >>>>honorable thing, confessing his misdeeds but not ratting out anyone
>>> >>>>else.</>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>I noticed he don't come round here no more. :-)
>>> >>
>>> >>I have mixed feelings about Victor. One the one hand, I don't believe
>> the
>>> >>Government has any business regulating private, adult, use of drugs,
>>> >>so
>> in
>>> >>those cases, Victor is the victim of immoral laws.
>>> >>
>>> >>On the other hand, he is a insurance/Medicare fraud crook, a lying con
>>> >>artist, and an miserable scum bag, so, I hope Bubba is waiting for
>>> >>him.
>>>
>>> For god's sakes, will you and David BOTH look up what the word moral
>>> actually means. Start with 'mores' (Latin) what it actually derives
>>> from and go from there.
>>>
>>> The drug laws may be stupid, ineffective and illogical but to say they
>>> are 'immoral' only makes the two of you look like idiots.
>
>

Rural living is good living
November 16th 04, 06:28 AM
>You have a point in saying if God were really against something why would he
>give us the ability to perform said act ?
>
>Robert G Smith

Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just because someone
thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God. As we all
know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your point) to
take crystal meth.
_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

David Cohen
November 16th 04, 07:23 AM
"Decorum" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
>> "Adam Fahy" > wrote
>>> David Cohen wrote:
>>>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
>>>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want
>>>> to call a law that allows immorality.
>>>
>>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just imprisonment
>>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a different
>>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession, and
>>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
>>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
>>
>> It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
>> manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life scum
>> sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs, would
>> be engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I say
>> is a defense of said scum.
>>
>> However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a consenting
>> adult is immoral.
>
> it's bad policy (in the case of some drugs. ) it's not "immoral".

If one believes that individual sovereignty is THE primary inalienable
right, that Government exists ONLY to protect the individual from the
initiation of violence by others, then it is IMMORAL...a violation of the
moral code of the individual in question...for the Government to regulate
ANY behavior which harms only the consenting adult involved.
>
> in the case of some drugs, like PCP, do you honestly think selling PCP and
> the like should NOT be punishable?

My moral code is not subjective, nor situational. The absolutes such as
"any" and "only" are ABSOLUTE. To any question, "But, surely, you can't mean
_________", my answer is "I meant what I said, and don't call me Shirley."
>
> or is it merely the imprisonment aspect that is bad, and it should instead
> result in house arrest, or something?

Don't call me Shirley.

David

spodosaurus
November 16th 04, 11:26 AM
John M. Williams wrote:
> spodosaurus > wrote:
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>
>>>spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>DZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>>>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>>>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not really.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>>>>>contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.
>>>>
>>>>One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
>>>>risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
>>>>balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
>>>>about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
>>>>just keep crapping on.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this supposed to be offensive? But do read below.
>>>
>>>"In conclusion, we found that both male and female alcohol intakes
>>>during the week of conception increased the risk of spontaneous
>>>abortion, including biochemically detected pregnancy loss".
>>
>>Spontaneous abortion is Not a birth defect!!!!!!! Do you even understand
>>the terms you're using, or is it all the art of cut and paste? You still
>>don't understand the difference between a bacteria (ie- yersinia pestis
>>or pneumonic plague) and a virus! Go and actually read a book, your
>>google searching is not enough to help you understand what the hell
>>you're talking about.
>
>
> Well, Ari, my research indicates that he has co-authored more than a
> dozen articles on population genetics in respected scientific
> journals. That doesn't sound to me like someone who just Googles
> random comments and doesn't know the difference between a bacteria and
> a virus.

Check our last encounter, John. This guy was trying to convince me that
because pneumonic plague, a bacterial infection, could become airborne
that HIV could do it to. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that:
1. one is a virus and the other is a bacteria
2. the reason HIV is so persistent once it enters a host is that it
antigen shifts, but this means:
a. it has to be unstable in order to successfully antigen shift and
stay ahead of the immune system
b. cannot become airborne because to do so would require a more stable
capsule to withstand airborne transmission, and this would negate its
ability to successfully stay ahead of the immune system

Not to mention:
c. becoming airborne would be a serious problem for the molecule that
allows it to get into the T4 cells in the first place.

He came up with his little 'oh let's all be so scared' argument after
someone moronically mentioned something similar in an article in Nature
that should not have made it past the editors. He STILL doesn't
understand the difference between a bacteria and a virus, either. This
does not surprise me, because he cannot grasp that a birth defect
actually requires a BIRTH!!!!!! (in other words, a spontaneous abortion
is not a birth defect...)

He may be able to work with population genetics equations, but when he
tries to pretend to be a 'jack of all trades' sort of bloke across all
fields of science, he falls down and refuses to take a look at the basic
first year facts.

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

spodosaurus
November 16th 04, 11:33 AM
DZ wrote:
> spodosaurus > wrote:
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>
>>>spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>DZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>spodosaurus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about those engaging in sex while under the influencce of
>>>>>>>alcohol? Otherwise "romantic" glass of wine at the time around
>>>>>>>conception will increase risk of birth defects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not really.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just came up with this rule: "I agree with you".
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless you can tell true from false in light of the evidence that
>>>>>contradicts your comforting beliefs. So far I'm not convinced.
>>>>
>>>>One glass of wine "at the time around conception" will not increase the
>>>>risk of anything you cretin. Stop blaming your parents for your lack of
>>>>balls, it wasn't the wine. You have absolutely no idea what you're on
>>>>about, and as you don't even realise the extent of your incompetence you
>>>>just keep crapping on.
>>>
>>>Is this supposed to be offensive? But do read below.
>>>
>>>"In conclusion, we found that both male and female alcohol intakes
>>>during the week of conception increased the risk of spontaneous
>>>abortion, including biochemically detected pregnancy loss".
>>
>>Spontaneous abortion is Not a birth defect!!!!!!! Do you even understand
>>the terms you're using, or is it all the art of cut and paste? You still
>>don't understand the difference between a bacteria (ie- yersinia pestis
>>or pneumonic plague) and a virus! Go and actually read a book, your
>>google searching is not enough to help you understand what the hell
>>you're talking about.
>
>
> Look, I'm not interested in this kind of discourse. Every time one of
> your buttons is hit you start screaming obscenities.

I haven't used a single obscenity. I hardly think calling you a cretin
two posts ago counts as an obscenity, as it's certainly not obscene and
is usually considered a compliment in this forum. If you WANT
obscenities, well, I can always try to oblige.

> I'd be marginally
> interested in some sort of occasional usenet dialog with you, for my
> own reasons. But you can't stick to your arguments and start spewing
> insults right away.

Because you disappoint me. Read my reply to John's post regarding the
airborne HIV issue you keep harping on. I really couldn't bear to
continue with that conversation all those weeks ago with you because you
refused to acknowledge the differences between a bacteria and a virus
and didn't appear to even understand that there was a difference. I
wasn't about to waste my time trying to let you in on the other three
points I outlined in my response to John.

> That's just too boring for me to wade through your
> insults and the exchange is losing any value to me. I understand that
> you have low tolerance for idiots like myself.

See, I don't think of you as a complete idiot because if I did I
wouldn't even bother. However, when you make a comment about birth
defects it really does require that there be a BIRTH! A spontaneous
abortion is a different (though in some cases associated) matter.

> Sorry about that and my
> big loving heart will forgive you.

Stop flirting: I'm married.

>
> DZ


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

spodosaurus
November 16th 04, 12:17 PM
Peter Allen wrote:
> "spodosaurus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Check our last encounter, John. This guy was trying to convince me that
>>because pneumonic plague, a bacterial infection, could become airborne
>>that HIV could do it to.
>
>
> Not to say the argument is right, but I'd observe that the common cold is an
> airborne virus.
>
> Peter
>
>

*sigh*

The extent of your understanding is that they're both viruses, yes? So
you probably didn't understand anything about the other three points i
made regarding the structure of the HIV protein coat or its ability to
change said coat, right? Then *why* are you bothering to comment about
things that you haven't even made any effort to understand? I really
don't get that.

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

Peter Allen
November 16th 04, 12:24 PM
"spodosaurus" > wrote in message
...
> Check our last encounter, John. This guy was trying to convince me that
> because pneumonic plague, a bacterial infection, could become airborne
> that HIV could do it to.

Not to say the argument is right, but I'd observe that the common cold is an
airborne virus.

Peter

Proton Soup
November 16th 04, 02:03 PM
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:08 +0800, spodosaurus
> wrote:

>Peter Allen wrote:
>> "spodosaurus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Check our last encounter, John. This guy was trying to convince me that
>>>because pneumonic plague, a bacterial infection, could become airborne
>>>that HIV could do it to.
>>
>>
>> Not to say the argument is right, but I'd observe that the common cold is an
>> airborne virus.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>
>*sigh*
>
>The extent of your understanding is that they're both viruses, yes? So
>you probably didn't understand anything about the other three points i
>made regarding the structure of the HIV protein coat or its ability to
>change said coat, right? Then *why* are you bothering to comment about
>things that you haven't even made any effort to understand? I really
>don't get that.

What about aerosols? The virus is tiny, and could easily be
encapsulated in body fluids. In situations where people are in close
proximity, it only need make a short trip.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Proton Soup
November 16th 04, 02:06 PM
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:26:59 +0800, spodosaurus
> wrote:

>He came up with his little 'oh let's all be so scared' argument after
>someone moronically mentioned something similar in an article in Nature
>that should not have made it past the editors. He STILL doesn't
>understand the difference between a bacteria and a virus, either. This
>does not surprise me, because he cannot grasp that a birth defect
>actually requires a BIRTH!!!!!! (in other words, a spontaneous abortion
>is not a birth defect...)

But you're assuming that alcohol will always cause a spontaneous
abortion, which is not a valid assumption. Maybe the success ratio is
lowered with alcohol, but face it, people drink a lot, and they also
**** a lot.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Will Brink
November 16th 04, 02:49 PM
In article .com>,
"robert" > wrote:

> I just read that at The Arnold Classic DEA agents were there serving
> subpoenas to all contestants for them to be brought in front of a grand jury
> to disclose where they got their steroids from.

It also happened at this years Olympia to several people.

> Maybe I am the last to find
> this out but as I see this this will force all BB competitions out of the
> US.
>
> I also read years ago that in California if you went on a beach and you had
> what might be a steroid enhanced body their license plate numbers were
> recorded and they were investigated for and some were in fact arrested for ,
> steroids. I don't believe this !
>
> Robert G Smith
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

spodosaurus
November 16th 04, 03:25 PM
Proton Soup wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:08 +0800, spodosaurus
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>>>"spodosaurus" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Check our last encounter, John. This guy was trying to convince me that
>>>>because pneumonic plague, a bacterial infection, could become airborne
>>>>that HIV could do it to.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not to say the argument is right, but I'd observe that the common cold is an
>>>airborne virus.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>>
>>The extent of your understanding is that they're both viruses, yes? So
>>you probably didn't understand anything about the other three points i
>>made regarding the structure of the HIV protein coat or its ability to
>>change said coat, right? Then *why* are you bothering to comment about
>>things that you haven't even made any effort to understand? I really
>>don't get that.
>
>
> What about aerosols? The virus is tiny, and could easily be
> encapsulated in body fluids. In situations where people are in close
> proximity, it only need make a short trip.

Again: please actually do some reading on the specifics of HIV. In my
reply to John's post I already explained why it doesn't happen that way
and why it won't ever happen that way. According to your baseless
speculation we should all be infected with HIV. That should let you know
that you're talking ****e and are a lazy bugger. I really don't feel
like trying to explain to the masses about the details of HIV if they're
too lazy to actually READ anything. Maybe Elzi could take over, she
seems to have more patience for those who can't be bothered putting in
any effort and actually reading some basics. She might start the process
by discussing the different molecules responsible for the three points I
already outlined in my response to John. There's another couple of
reasons why airborne infection with HIV is not going to happen and
doesn't happen that way, but I'm not going to bother mentioning them
right now because all I get are people making trash comments that any
first year microbiology student would laugh at (and for the sake of
accuracy, microbiology starts in second year here, and I was referring
to that as the first year of microbiology rather than the students
studying it as first years).

>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

spodosaurus
November 16th 04, 03:27 PM
Proton Soup wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:26:59 +0800, spodosaurus
> > wrote:
>
>
>>He came up with his little 'oh let's all be so scared' argument after
>>someone moronically mentioned something similar in an article in Nature
>>that should not have made it past the editors. He STILL doesn't
>>understand the difference between a bacteria and a virus, either. This
>>does not surprise me, because he cannot grasp that a birth defect
>>actually requires a BIRTH!!!!!! (in other words, a spontaneous abortion
>>is not a birth defect...)
>
>
> But you're assuming that alcohol will always cause a spontaneous
> abortion, which is not a valid assumption.

And you're no better at being psychic than you are at critical reading.
There is NO evidence that one glass of wine around the time of
conception causes birth defects. There is evidence that it may increase
the risk beyond normal of early spontaneous abortion.

> Maybe the success ratio is
> lowered with alcohol, but face it, people drink a lot, and they also
> **** a lot.
>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. To jump to the end
of the story, as a result of this I need a bone marrow transplant. Many
people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

Tally
November 16th 04, 04:01 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Decorum" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote
> >> "Adam Fahy" > wrote
> >>> David Cohen wrote:
> >>>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
> >>>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want
> >>>> to call a law that allows immorality.
> >>>
> >>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just
imprisonment
> >>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a
different
> >>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession,
and
> >>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
> >>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
> >>
> >> It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
> >> manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life scum
> >> sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs,
would
> >> be engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I
say
> >> is a defense of said scum.
> >>
> >> However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a
consenting
> >> adult is immoral.
> >
> > it's bad policy (in the case of some drugs. ) it's not "immoral".
>
> If one believes that individual sovereignty is THE primary inalienable
> right, that Government exists ONLY to protect the individual from the
> initiation of violence by others, then it is IMMORAL...a violation of the
> moral code of the individual in question...for the Government to regulate
> ANY behavior which harms only the consenting adult involved.
> >

except that, as much as it would be groovy, this is not a "libertarian
country" david. the const. clearly does not protect as constitionally
inviolable, self-regarding acts. that includes drug use.

and calling it immoral to prohibit same just weakens the word "immoral"
which should be rightly applied to TRULY immoral actions of govt.

> > in the case of some drugs, like PCP, do you honestly think selling PCP
and
> > the like should NOT be punishable?
>
> My moral code is not subjective, nor situational. The absolutes such as
> "any" and "only" are ABSOLUTE. To any question, "But, surely, you can't
mean
> _________", my answer is "I meant what I said, and don't call me Shirley."
> >
> > or is it merely the imprisonment aspect that is bad, and it should
instead
> > result in house arrest, or something?
>
> Don't call me Shirley.
>
> David
>

my point is that (and this is obviously a semantical wank) calling such laws
"immoral" merely weakens the meaning of that important word

there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.

and it's not immoral to prohibit that, although in the case of many drugs,
it is bad policy

whit

>

Tally
November 16th 04, 04:03 PM
"Rural living is good living" > wrote in
message ...
> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why would
he
> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
> >
> >Robert G Smith
>
> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just because
someone
> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God. As we
all
> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your point)
to
> take crystal meth.
> _______

not according to our const. dood.

so, we don't all know it.

it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the reality
is - it is not

whit

> "They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by
Lurker
> on a Gold's Gym policy.
>
> Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life,
family,
> and property?
> Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Proton Soup
November 16th 04, 04:11 PM
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:01:55 -0800, "Tally" >
wrote:

>
>"David Cohen" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>> "Decorum" > wrote
>> > "David Cohen" > wrote
>> >> "Adam Fahy" > wrote
>> >>> David Cohen wrote:
>> >>>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
>> >>>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you want
>> >>>> to call a law that allows immorality.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just
>imprisonment
>> >>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a
>different
>> >>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession,
>and
>> >>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
>> >>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
>> >>
>> >> It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
>> >> manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life scum
>> >> sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs,
>would
>> >> be engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I
>say
>> >> is a defense of said scum.
>> >>
>> >> However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a
>consenting
>> >> adult is immoral.
>> >
>> > it's bad policy (in the case of some drugs. ) it's not "immoral".
>>
>> If one believes that individual sovereignty is THE primary inalienable
>> right, that Government exists ONLY to protect the individual from the
>> initiation of violence by others, then it is IMMORAL...a violation of the
>> moral code of the individual in question...for the Government to regulate
>> ANY behavior which harms only the consenting adult involved.
>> >
>
>except that, as much as it would be groovy, this is not a "libertarian
>country" david. the const. clearly does not protect as constitionally
>inviolable, self-regarding acts. that includes drug use.
>
>and calling it immoral to prohibit same just weakens the word "immoral"
>which should be rightly applied to TRULY immoral actions of govt.
>
>> > in the case of some drugs, like PCP, do you honestly think selling PCP
>and
>> > the like should NOT be punishable?
>>
>> My moral code is not subjective, nor situational. The absolutes such as
>> "any" and "only" are ABSOLUTE. To any question, "But, surely, you can't
>mean
>> _________", my answer is "I meant what I said, and don't call me Shirley."
>> >
>> > or is it merely the imprisonment aspect that is bad, and it should
>instead
>> > result in house arrest, or something?
>>
>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>
>> David
>>
>
>my point is that (and this is obviously a semantical wank) calling such laws
>"immoral" merely weakens the meaning of that important word
>
>there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.
>
>and it's not immoral to prohibit that, although in the case of many drugs,
>it is bad policy

You're making the mistake of assuming the Constitution is an
enumeration of rights. It is not. Rights not listed are just that,
not listed.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Proton Soup
November 16th 04, 04:17 PM
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:27:04 +0800, spodosaurus
> wrote:

>Proton Soup wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:26:59 +0800, spodosaurus
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He came up with his little 'oh let's all be so scared' argument after
>>>someone moronically mentioned something similar in an article in Nature
>>>that should not have made it past the editors. He STILL doesn't
>>>understand the difference between a bacteria and a virus, either. This
>>>does not surprise me, because he cannot grasp that a birth defect
>>>actually requires a BIRTH!!!!!! (in other words, a spontaneous abortion
>>>is not a birth defect...)
>>
>>
>> But you're assuming that alcohol will always cause a spontaneous
>> abortion, which is not a valid assumption.
>
>And you're no better at being psychic than you are at critical reading.
>There is NO evidence that one glass of wine around the time of
>conception causes birth defects. There is evidence that it may increase
>the risk beyond normal of early spontaneous abortion.
>
>> Maybe the success ratio is
>> lowered with alcohol, but face it, people drink a lot, and they also
>> **** a lot.

Weird. I don't remember you behaving this strangely before.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Tally
November 16th 04, 04:27 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:01:55 -0800, "Tally" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Cohen" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >>
> >> "Decorum" > wrote
> >> > "David Cohen" > wrote
> >> >> "Adam Fahy" > wrote
> >> >>> David Cohen wrote:
> >> >>>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm
only
> >> >>>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you
want
> >> >>>> to call a law that allows immorality.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just
> >imprisonment
> >> >>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a
> >different
> >> >>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession,
> >and
> >> >>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
> >> >>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
> >> >> manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life
scum
> >> >> sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs,
> >would
> >> >> be engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I
> >say
> >> >> is a defense of said scum.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a
> >consenting
> >> >> adult is immoral.
> >> >
> >> > it's bad policy (in the case of some drugs. ) it's not "immoral".
> >>
> >> If one believes that individual sovereignty is THE primary inalienable
> >> right, that Government exists ONLY to protect the individual from the
> >> initiation of violence by others, then it is IMMORAL...a violation of
the
> >> moral code of the individual in question...for the Government to
regulate
> >> ANY behavior which harms only the consenting adult involved.
> >> >
> >
> >except that, as much as it would be groovy, this is not a "libertarian
> >country" david. the const. clearly does not protect as constitionally
> >inviolable, self-regarding acts. that includes drug use.
> >
> >and calling it immoral to prohibit same just weakens the word "immoral"
> >which should be rightly applied to TRULY immoral actions of govt.
> >
> >> > in the case of some drugs, like PCP, do you honestly think selling
PCP
> >and
> >> > the like should NOT be punishable?
> >>
> >> My moral code is not subjective, nor situational. The absolutes such as
> >> "any" and "only" are ABSOLUTE. To any question, "But, surely, you can't
> >mean
> >> _________", my answer is "I meant what I said, and don't call me
Shirley."
> >> >
> >> > or is it merely the imprisonment aspect that is bad, and it should
> >instead
> >> > result in house arrest, or something?
> >>
> >> Don't call me Shirley.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >
> >my point is that (and this is obviously a semantical wank) calling such
laws
> >"immoral" merely weakens the meaning of that important word
> >
> >there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.
> >
> >and it's not immoral to prohibit that, although in the case of many
drugs,
> >it is bad policy
>
> You're making the mistake of assuming the Constitution is an
> enumeration of rights. It is not. Rights not listed are just that,
> not listed.
>
> -----------
> Proton Soup

i'm not making that mistake. i am well aware of that. but there is simply
no inviolable right to do drugs under our system of govt.

sorry. it's a pipe dream (no pun intended) and wholly unsupported by facts

iow, it's stating what you wish was true, as some sort of truth

which it aint

whit

>
> "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

David Cohen
November 16th 04, 04:40 PM
"Tally" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
>> "Decorum" > wrote
>> > "David Cohen" > wrote
>> >> "Adam Fahy" > wrote
>> >>> David Cohen wrote:
>> >>>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm only
>> >>>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you
>> >>>> want
>> >>>> to call a law that allows immorality.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just
> imprisonment
>> >>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a
> different
>> >>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession,
> and
>> >>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
>> >>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
>> >>
>> >> It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
>> >> manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life scum
>> >> sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs,
> would
>> >> be engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I
> say
>> >> is a defense of said scum.
>> >>
>> >> However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a
> consenting
>> >> adult is immoral.
>> >
>> > it's bad policy (in the case of some drugs. ) it's not "immoral".
>>
>> If one believes that individual sovereignty is THE primary inalienable
>> right, that Government exists ONLY to protect the individual from the
>> initiation of violence by others, then it is IMMORAL...a violation of the
>> moral code of the individual in question...for the Government to regulate
>> ANY behavior which harms only the consenting adult involved.
>> >
> > except that, as much as it would be groovy, this is not a "libertarian
> country" david.

Which is why nowhere do I propose the elimination of said drug laws. Immoral
drug laws are one,superficial, example, and can not be changed in isolation.
And I am also not out there proposing changing the system. Remember, I voted
for Bush. I recognize the system for what it is, and work within it.

> the const. clearly does not protect as constitionally
> inviolable, self-regarding acts. that includes drug use.
>
> and calling it immoral to prohibit same just weakens the word "immoral"
> which should be rightly applied to TRULY immoral actions of govt.

I could call them "goats" if that would be better, but what I call them
doesn't change their immoral nature.

>> > in the case of some drugs, like PCP, do you honestly think selling PCP
> and
>> > the like should NOT be punishable?
>>
>> My moral code is not subjective, nor situational. The absolutes such as
>> "any" and "only" are ABSOLUTE. To any question, "But, surely, you can't
> mean
>> _________", my answer is "I meant what I said, and don't call me
>> Shirley."
>> >
>> > or is it merely the imprisonment aspect that is bad, and it should
> instead
>> > result in house arrest, or something?
>>
>> Don't call me Shirley.

> my point is that (and this is obviously a semantical wank) calling such
> laws
> "immoral" merely weakens the meaning of that important word

I disagree. It's a small, superficial, way of using the word consistent with
my philosophy. But I am willing to call them goats.

> there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.

Duh.
>
> and it's not immoral to prohibit that, although in the case of many drugs,
> it is bad policy

I disagree. With the immo...uh, the goat part. The good/bad policy we agree
on.

David

Tally
November 16th 04, 04:55 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Tally" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote
> >> "Decorum" > wrote
> >> > "David Cohen" > wrote
> >> >> "Adam Fahy" > wrote
> >> >>> David Cohen wrote:
> >> >>>> Semantic quibbling. The unjust inprisonment of persons who harm
only
> >> >>>> themselves is immoral. The laws that allow such are whatever you
> >> >>>> want
> >> >>>> to call a law that allows immorality.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just as an aside--and to play devil's advocate--is the just
> > imprisonment
> >> >>> of persons who possess illegal substances immoral? This is a
> > different
> >> >>> question than the one you pose above, about doing harm: possession,
> > and
> >> >>> distribution, are both different from use, also different from
> >> >>> intoxication, and performing actions while intoxicated...
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a reasonable question. That drugs are illegal attracts to the
> >> >> manufacture/distribution/selling the usual collection of low life
scum
> >> >> sucking derelicts of society, who, if they were not dealing drugs,
> > would
> >> >> be engaged in some other violent criminal activity, and so nothing I
> > say
> >> >> is a defense of said scum.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, imprisonment for "only" selling an illegal drug to a
> > consenting
> >> >> adult is immoral.
> >> >
> >> > it's bad policy (in the case of some drugs. ) it's not "immoral".
> >>
> >> If one believes that individual sovereignty is THE primary inalienable
> >> right, that Government exists ONLY to protect the individual from the
> >> initiation of violence by others, then it is IMMORAL...a violation of
the
> >> moral code of the individual in question...for the Government to
regulate
> >> ANY behavior which harms only the consenting adult involved.
> >> >
> > > except that, as much as it would be groovy, this is not a "libertarian
> > country" david.
>
> Which is why nowhere do I propose the elimination of said drug laws.
Immoral
> drug laws are one,superficial, example, and can not be changed in
isolation.
> And I am also not out there proposing changing the system. Remember, I
voted
> for Bush. I recognize the system for what it is, and work within it.
>
> > the const. clearly does not protect as constitionally
> > inviolable, self-regarding acts. that includes drug use.
> >
> > and calling it immoral to prohibit same just weakens the word "immoral"
> > which should be rightly applied to TRULY immoral actions of govt.
>
> I could call them "goats" if that would be better, but what I call them
> doesn't change their immoral nature.
>

it's a semantical wank, but an important one

imo, calling these laws immoral weakens the word. that's bad.

> >> > in the case of some drugs, like PCP, do you honestly think selling
PCP
> > and
> >> > the like should NOT be punishable?
> >>
> >> My moral code is not subjective, nor situational. The absolutes such as
> >> "any" and "only" are ABSOLUTE. To any question, "But, surely, you can't
> > mean
> >> _________", my answer is "I meant what I said, and don't call me
> >> Shirley."
> >> >
> >> > or is it merely the imprisonment aspect that is bad, and it should
> > instead
> >> > result in house arrest, or something?
> >>
> >> Don't call me Shirley.
>
> > my point is that (and this is obviously a semantical wank) calling such
> > laws
> > "immoral" merely weakens the meaning of that important word
>
> I disagree. It's a small, superficial, way of using the word consistent
with
> my philosophy. But I am willing to call them goats.
>

ok. i prefer BAD law


> > there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.
>
> Duh.
> >
> > and it's not immoral to prohibit that, although in the case of many
drugs,
> > it is bad policy
>
> I disagree. With the immo...uh, the goat part. The good/bad policy we
agree
> on.
>

goats. goats. goats

whit

> David
>
>

Peter Allen
November 16th 04, 07:00 PM
"spodosaurus" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Allen wrote:
> > "spodosaurus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Check our last encounter, John. This guy was trying to convince me that
> >>because pneumonic plague, a bacterial infection, could become airborne
> >>that HIV could do it to.
> >
> >
> > Not to say the argument is right, but I'd observe that the common cold
is an
> > airborne virus.
>
> *sigh*
>
> The extent of your understanding is that they're both viruses, yes?

Pretty much.

> So
> you probably didn't understand anything about the other three points i
> made regarding the structure of the HIV protein coat or its ability to
> change said coat, right? Then *why* are you bothering to comment about
> things that you haven't even made any effort to understand? I really
> don't get that.

I'm very happy to accept that you know what you're talking about with
regards to how HIV can and can't be transmitted.
I was simply observing that the bit above I quoted (plus your point 1) sound
very suspiciously like 'you've got one thing wrong so your whole idea is
wrong'. Which is only a small step up from 'your spelling is crap so you're
wrong', unless the one thing is central to the argument; in this case it
isn't.

Peter

DZ
November 16th 04, 10:37 PM
Peter Allen > wrote:
> "spodosaurus" > wrote
>> Check our last encounter, John. This guy was trying to convince me that
>> because pneumonic plague, a bacterial infection, could become airborne
>> that HIV could do it to.
>
> Not to say the argument is right, but I'd observe that the common
> cold is an airborne virus.

Let me make it clear: RA Weiss briefly mentioned plague in this
respect in a Nature paper, which I quoted: http://tinyurl.com/3tnuh
That's it. But is it such a ridiculous proposition? Spodosaurus says
anyone who took microbiology 101 would laugh. However, Weiss appears
to be highly cited researcher who studies "retroviruses, retroviruses,
retroviruses": http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/oct/nprofile_021028.html

Hmm... Perhaps he can't tell virus from bacteria either?

Anyway, the plague point is tangential since the passage discusses the
broader issue - can HIV virus change the mode of transmission in the
future? For example, can it evolve so that the transmission through
insect bites is possible? Other mammal retroviruses have evolved that
way. Do we witness the transmission becomes easier *now*? Perhaps so -
those who study AIDS do not rule this out. Earlier I posted one such
study, here is another:

An article in AIDS 2003, 17:1977 discussed a case of non-sexual
transmission within a household. An Australian became infected with
an HIV type endemic to Russia, through a contact with a Russian
tourist. Later, another person within that household contracted exacly
that type (confirmed by phylogenetic analysis). "Extensive history
taking, cross-validated by independent reviewers, found no evidence
whatsoever that any form of sexual contact or known blood contact
could explain the HIV-1 infection in the two index cases".

The paper concluded that "unsuspected transmission via non-sexual
routes can occur on rare occasions among adults". Now, one can argue
researchers might not know the whole story. However, if the idea were
so outright senseless, I doubt AIDS would publish the paper.

DZ

Rural living is good living
November 17th 04, 05:44 AM
>
>
>"Rural living is good living" > wrote in
>message ...
>> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why would
>he
>> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
>> >
>> >Robert G Smith
>>
>> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just because
>someone
>> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God. As we
>all
>> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your point)
>to
>> take crystal meth.
>> _______
>
> not according to our const. dood.
>
>so, we don't all know it.
>
>it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the reality
>is - it is not
>
>whit

Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Vin
November 17th 04, 11:02 PM
Rural living is good living > wrote in
message ...
> >
> >
> >"Rural living is good living" > wrote in
> >message ...
> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why
would
> >he
> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
> >> >
> >> >Robert G Smith
> >>
> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just because
> >someone
> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God. As
we
> >all
> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
point)
> >to
> >> take crystal meth.
> >> _______
> >
> > not according to our const. dood.
> >
> >so, we don't all know it.
> >
> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
reality
> >is - it is not
> >
> >whit
>
> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?

it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.

but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke meth,
or to commit murder

laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize, or
protect, a right to do drugs.
duh

whit

> _______
> "They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by
Lurker
> on a Gold's Gym policy.
>
> Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life,
family,
> and property?
> Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Proton Soup
November 17th 04, 11:29 PM
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:35 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:

>
>Rural living is good living > wrote in
>message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Rural living is good living" > wrote in
>> >message ...
>> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why
>would
>> >he
>> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
>> >> >
>> >> >Robert G Smith
>> >>
>> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just because
>> >someone
>> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God. As
>we
>> >all
>> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
>point)
>> >to
>> >> take crystal meth.
>> >> _______
>> >
>> > not according to our const. dood.
>> >
>> >so, we don't all know it.
>> >
>> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
>reality
>> >is - it is not
>> >
>> >whit
>>
>> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
>
>it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
>
>but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke meth,
>or to commit murder
>
>laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize, or
>protect, a right to do drugs.
>duh

Are you saying that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of
an individual to be alive?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Lucas Buck
November 17th 04, 11:45 PM
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:35 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:

>
>Rural living is good living > wrote in
>message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Rural living is good living" > wrote in
>> >message ...
>> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why
>would
>> >he
>> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
>> >> >
>> >> >Robert G Smith
>> >>
>> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just because
>> >someone
>> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God. As
>we
>> >all
>> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
>point)
>> >to
>> >> take crystal meth.
>> >> _______
>> >
>> > not according to our const. dood.
>> >
>> >so, we don't all know it.
>> >
>> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
>reality
>> >is - it is not
>> >
>> >whit
>>
>> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
>
>it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
>
>but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke meth,
>or to commit murder
>
>laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize, or
>protect, a right to do drugs.
>duh
>
>whit


Wow, Whitney, you're the last person I'd expect to make that mistake.

Murder is a STATE crime. The Constitution has no reason to enumerate
individual bans or individual rights.

The proper argument regarding Federal crimes against drugs is the abuse of
the Commerce Clause.

Congress ONLY has those powers granted it by the Constitution. Federalizing
individual crimes via abuse of the Commerce clause (starting with the FDR-packed
Supreme Court) is a real problem.


--
Luke lefty AT dodgerssuck.com
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate.
And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
(Jack Handey)

Vin
November 18th 04, 03:16 AM
Proton Soup > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:35 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Rural living is good living > wrote in
> >message ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Rural living is good living" > wrote
in
> >> >message ...
> >> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why
> >would
> >> >he
> >> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Robert G Smith
> >> >>
> >> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just
because
> >> >someone
> >> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God.
As
> >we
> >> >all
> >> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
> >point)
> >> >to
> >> >> take crystal meth.
> >> >> _______
> >> >
> >> > not according to our const. dood.
> >> >
> >> >so, we don't all know it.
> >> >
> >> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
> >reality
> >> >is - it is not
> >> >
> >> >whit
> >>
> >> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
> >
> >it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
> >
> >but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke
meth,
> >or to commit murder
> >
> >laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize,
or
> >protect, a right to do drugs.
> >duh
>
> Are you saying that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of
> an individual to be alive?

it certainly does not. that's why the death penalty is legal. so, it does
not "guarantee" that right.

whit

>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Vin
November 18th 04, 03:19 AM
Lucas Buck > wrote in message
news:1100735109.KwalVXkY9xt7uVp/[email protected]
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:35 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Rural living is good living > wrote in
> >message ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Rural living is good living" > wrote
in
> >> >message ...
> >> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why
> >would
> >> >he
> >> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Robert G Smith
> >> >>
> >> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just
because
> >> >someone
> >> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God.
As
> >we
> >> >all
> >> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
> >point)
> >> >to
> >> >> take crystal meth.
> >> >> _______
> >> >
> >> > not according to our const. dood.
> >> >
> >> >so, we don't all know it.
> >> >
> >> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
> >reality
> >> >is - it is not
> >> >
> >> >whit
> >>
> >> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
> >
> >it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
> >
> >but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke
meth,
> >or to commit murder
> >
> >laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize,
or
> >protect, a right to do drugs.
> >duh
> >
> >whit
>
>
> Wow, Whitney, you're the last person I'd expect to make that mistake.
>
> Murder is a STATE crime.

not in all cases.

murder of a federal agent, on federal property, etc. is a FEDERAL CRIME

The Constitution has no reason to enumerate
> individual bans or individual rights.
>
> The proper argument regarding Federal crimes against drugs is the abuse of
> the Commerce Clause.
>
> Congress ONLY has those powers granted it by the Constitution.
Federalizing
> individual crimes via abuse of the Commerce clause (starting with the
FDR-packed
> Supreme Court) is a real problem.

you can make that argument all you want, but it doesn't make drug laws
unconst. or murder laws unconst.

i think that , as a matter of policy, drug possession and dealer laws should
only apply on the STATE level. if a state wants to legalize MJ, more power
to them. but it's not a const. invalid for the feds to outlaw MJ. it's
just dumb

murder is also within fed. jurisdiction as noted

whit

>
>
> --
> Luke lefty AT dodgerssuck.com
> "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate.
> And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect
it."
> (Jack Handey)

Proton Soup
November 18th 04, 03:43 AM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:16:46 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:

>
>Proton Soup > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:35 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Rural living is good living > wrote in
>> >message ...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Rural living is good living" > wrote
>in
>> >> >message ...
>> >> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something why
>> >would
>> >> >he
>> >> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Robert G Smith
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just
>because
>> >> >someone
>> >> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is God.
>As
>> >we
>> >> >all
>> >> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
>> >point)
>> >> >to
>> >> >> take crystal meth.
>> >> >> _______
>> >> >
>> >> > not according to our const. dood.
>> >> >
>> >> >so, we don't all know it.
>> >> >
>> >> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
>> >reality
>> >> >is - it is not
>> >> >
>> >> >whit
>> >>
>> >> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
>> >
>> >it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
>> >
>> >but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke
>meth,
>> >or to commit murder
>> >
>> >laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize,
>or
>> >protect, a right to do drugs.
>> >duh
>>
>> Are you saying that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of
>> an individual to be alive?
>
>it certainly does not. that's why the death penalty is legal. so, it does
>not "guarantee" that right.

You mean the same way other rights can be taken away by due process?
Rights like freedom of movement, speech, voting, etc.? Just because
it can be taken away doesn't mean it isn't a right.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Rural living is good living
November 18th 04, 06:08 AM
>> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
>
>it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.

Here is how it was designed to work. The states control murder laws on state
land and the federal government does the same on federal land.

>but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke meth,
>or to commit murder

As we known, if it is not in the U.S. Constitution and it happens on state
land, then it is up to the state. Yes, states may ban meth, but the federal
government may not ban meth. You could argue that the federal government could
ban meth that travels between state lines; but, it cannot be argued (according
to the U.S. Constitution) that the federal government could ban meth that stays
within one state.

>laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize, or
>protect, a right to do drugs.

The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit any drugs; and so, according to the
U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot ban drugs on state property
unless the U.S. Constitution is changed.


_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Rural living is good living
November 18th 04, 06:10 AM
>Federalizing
>individual crimes via abuse of the Commerce clause (starting with the
>FDR-packed
>Supreme Court) is a real problem.

Yes, and still totally ****ed even by the governments so-called Constitution
law theories. People still get thrown in jail when all they do is use,
produce, or sell drugs entirely within one state.

_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Rural living is good living
November 18th 04, 06:22 AM
>but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke meth,

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do
PART III:
How and Why Drugs Became Illegal

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/303a.htm#illegal

_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Vin
November 18th 04, 07:09 AM
Rural living is good living > wrote in
message ...
> >but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke
meth,
>
> Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do
> PART III:
> How and Why Drugs Became Illegal
>
> http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/303a.htm#illegal
>

i am aware of the history. so what?

whit

> _______
> "They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by
Lurker
> on a Gold's Gym policy.
>
> Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life,
family,
> and property?
> Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Vin
November 18th 04, 07:11 AM
Rural living is good living > wrote in
message ...
> >> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is banned?
> >
> >it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
>
> Here is how it was designed to work. The states control murder laws on
state
> land and the federal government does the same on federal land.
>

not just on federal land. also in regards to federal agents, and many other
exceptions.


> >but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke
meth,
> >or to commit murder
>
> As we known, if it is not in the U.S. Constitution and it happens on state
> land, then it is up to the state. Yes, states may ban meth, but the
federal
> government may not ban meth. You could argue that the federal government
could
> ban meth that travels between state lines; but, it cannot be argued
(according
> to the U.S. Constitution) that the federal government could ban meth that
stays
> within one state.
>

actually, it can be argued, and that is the de jure reality.

> >laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not recognize,
or
> >protect, a right to do drugs.
>
> The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit any drugs; and so, according to
the
> U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot ban drugs on state
property
> unless the U.S. Constitution is changed.

that is incorrect const. analysis. why don't you do a little research

try

www.findlaw.com

hth

whit

>
>
> _______
> "They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by
Lurker
> on a Gold's Gym policy.
>
> Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life,
family,
> and property?
> Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

John M. Williams
November 18th 04, 12:26 PM
(Rural living is good living) wrote:

>>Federalizing
>>individual crimes via abuse of the Commerce clause (starting with the
>>FDR-packed
>>Supreme Court) is a real problem.
>
>Yes, and still totally ****ed even by the governments so-called Constitution
>law theories. People still get thrown in jail when all they do is use,
>produce, or sell drugs entirely within one state.

Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of drug
prosecutions are under state law?

Vin
November 19th 04, 02:09 AM
Proton Soup > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:16:46 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Proton Soup > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:35 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Rural living is good living > wrote in
> >> >message ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Rural living is good living" >
wrote
> >in
> >> >> >message ...
> >> >> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something
why
> >> >would
> >> >> >he
> >> >> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Robert G Smith
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just
> >because
> >> >> >someone
> >> >> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is
God.
> >As
> >> >we
> >> >> >all
> >> >> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
> >> >point)
> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> take crystal meth.
> >> >> >> _______
> >> >> >
> >> >> > not according to our const. dood.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >so, we don't all know it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
> >> >reality
> >> >> >is - it is not
> >> >> >
> >> >> >whit
> >> >>
> >> >> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is
banned?
> >> >
> >> >it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
> >> >
> >> >but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke
> >meth,
> >> >or to commit murder
> >> >
> >> >laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not
recognize,
> >or
> >> >protect, a right to do drugs.
> >> >duh
> >>
> >> Are you saying that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of
> >> an individual to be alive?
> >
> >it certainly does not. that's why the death penalty is legal. so, it
does
> >not "guarantee" that right.
>
> You mean the same way other rights can be taken away by due process?
> Rights like freedom of movement, speech, voting, etc.? Just because
> it can be taken away doesn't mean it isn't a right.
>

correct. that's why the constitution does not GUARANTEE the right of an
individual to be alive. it was an absurd statement. choose your words

whit

> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Proton Soup
November 19th 04, 02:47 AM
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:09:13 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:

>
>Proton Soup > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:16:46 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Proton Soup > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:02:35 GMT, "Vin" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Rural living is good living > wrote in
>> >> >message ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Rural living is good living" >
>wrote
>> >in
>> >> >> >message ...
>> >> >> >> >You have a point in saying if God were really against something
>why
>> >> >would
>> >> >> >he
>> >> >> >> >give us the ability to perform said act ?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Robert G Smith
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Dude, I was saying that crystal meth should not be illegal just
>> >because
>> >> >> >someone
>> >> >> >> thinks it should be illegal. The only one with that power is
>God.
>> >As
>> >> >we
>> >> >> >all
>> >> >> >> know, consenting adults have the right (God given, to answer your
>> >> >point)
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> >> take crystal meth.
>> >> >> >> _______
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > not according to our const. dood.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >so, we don't all know it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >it might be nice if that right was recognized by the const. but the
>> >> >reality
>> >> >> >is - it is not
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >whit
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it say that meth is
>banned?
>> >> >
>> >> >it doesn't say that murder is banned, either.
>> >> >
>> >> >but there is nothing in the const. that protects one's right to smoke
>> >meth,
>> >> >or to commit murder
>> >> >
>> >> >laws prohibiting same ARE const. because the const. does not
>recognize,
>> >or
>> >> >protect, a right to do drugs.
>> >> >duh
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of
>> >> an individual to be alive?
>> >
>> >it certainly does not. that's why the death penalty is legal. so, it
>does
>> >not "guarantee" that right.
>>
>> You mean the same way other rights can be taken away by due process?
>> Rights like freedom of movement, speech, voting, etc.? Just because
>> it can be taken away doesn't mean it isn't a right.
>>
>
>correct. that's why the constitution does not GUARANTEE the right of an
>individual to be alive. it was an absurd statement. choose your words

Ah, word games. Whatever. Your equating of banning murder with
banning drugs is absurd.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Rural living is good living
November 19th 04, 06:14 AM
>Ah, word games. Whatever. Your equating of banning murder with
>banning drugs is absurd.
>
>-----------
>Proton Soup

I couldn't agree more.
_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

Seth Breidbart
December 16th 04, 05:16 AM
In article <[email protected]_s03>,
Lee Michaels > wrote:

>If the substance is legal, it is legal. Sell it at the local pharmacy.

If you want it to be legal, but discourage use, sell it at the Post
Office.

Seth
--
Note to self: a powerlifting meet is not a recommended taper
for a track event. --Ted K.

Seth Breidbart
December 16th 04, 05:18 AM
In article >, Tally > wrote:

>there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.

There would have been, if the Founding Fathers had suspected that the
government would one day outlaw some of their crops.

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

Jim
December 16th 04, 05:25 AM
"Seth Breidbart" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tally >
> wrote:
>
>>there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.
>
> There would have been, if the Founding Fathers had suspected that the
> government would one day outlaw some of their crops.
>

Or if they predicted a Bush Dynasty could fool so many people and jail so
many for minor drug offenses while Jeb Bushes daughter and George himself
goes free. Always remember that people are in jail for many years for what
Jebs daughter did.

Jim

Jim

freedom can be found
December 16th 04, 08:45 AM
>>there is no const. right to do drugs. that is clear.

In Alaska, the courts have ruled the opposite and ruled that small amounts of
pot are protected by the Alaska Constitution.
_________

Do you want more control of your life?
Would you like less regulations and smaller government?
Make it happen: http://www.freestateproject.com