On Feb 6, 10:36*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:58:53 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:





Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:32:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I agree. *We should help him kick the habit.

Why?
a) What if he doesn't want to?
b) Even if he does, why is that anyone's responsibility but his?

By your glib answer, can I assume that you're fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't
affect you?

And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

so, there are no wealthy addicts? how about wall street coke users? bankers?
lawyers? hollywood or rock stars? i would presume that they could afford
their habits without affecting anyone else, and the time to intervene is
when they DO affect someone besides themselves.

I knew lots of (too many) druggies back in my yout. They did no harm
to anyone but themselves: mostly hard-partying, blue-collar folks.
(Now that I'm sober, partiers are no longer in my life at all.) Uppy
is negating the "no harm to others" portion of Miller's statement;
whether it's due to ignorance (about that sector of the population) or
intent, I don't know. *They're out there and there are a lot of them.
Perhaps Uppy is only considering the bottom of the barrel because
they're easier to shoot at, _if_ he were inclined to get a gun. *;

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- George Bernard Shaw

Well then, legalize all drugs and take the 'business disputes' off the
street.