"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
the
consequences of your bad choices?

Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
choice?

Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
a
bad choice.

Do try to pay attention.

What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?

Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance.
I
think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
health insurance is a poor choice.


For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.


--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.

It's as I said before. No ever goes out with the intention to get addicted
to something, whether it's drugs, alcohol, smoking or even caffeine. That
unintended addiction garners little sympathy from many people.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...

That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

If there is no supply ...

Then you are living on some other planet.

In article , "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
the
consequences of your bad choices?

Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
choice?

Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out was
in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is indeed
a
bad choice.

Do try to pay attention.

What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient insurance?

Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had not
spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort insurance.
I
think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
health insurance is a poor choice.


For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.

There is always a choice.

In article ,
says...

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...

That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

If there is no supply ...

Then you are living on some other planet.

The point that is continually missed is that people who want to get high
will find a way to get high. People have been known to get high on
cooking spray so you can expect the DEA to ban that next.

On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:


Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
sensitivity.

This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
their shop dog.

The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back
to the groin, and painted cherry.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

DGDevin wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...


Well said. To that I would add that rehab is way, way cheaper than
prison. I'd rather pay for an addict to go to rehab (even more than
once) than to put him in prison for years at enormous expense.

Rehab is 30k/month.

Where, at some celebrity rehab resort?

http://www.drug-alcohol-rehabs.org/drug-rehab-cost.html

"From the National Substance Abuse Treatment Services Survey
(N-SATSS), the average cost for inpatient programs was about $7,000
per month. Since more than 30 days produces a higher recovery rate,
the cost of drug rehab can easily go between $7,500 and $75,000. A
typical cost is usually going to be about $36,000 for a 90-day
program."
And that's private treatment, I bet the VA or the armed services do it
cheaper than that.

In my state, incarceration is way cheaper. In 2003, we paid $2.5 billion to
lock up 148,000 inmates. That's a bit over $17,000 per inmate per year.
Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.


Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're
looking at a one-time expense. For the same money you get to lock up
someone for just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the
odds of them returning to prison are high. So which approach seems
like a better use of the taxpayer's dollar? Half of all federal
prison inmates are there for drug offenses, and prisons cost the
American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I think exploring
alternatives is at least worth trying.

There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth, the other
in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national centers (drug-free
after being released for one year) is six percent. Compare this to the 30%
of released criminals who do not return to prison and you'll see that jail
has a better outcome than treatment for addiciton.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then
what?
Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to
pay the consequences of your bad choices?


Who Decides? You? Me?

The new Death Panels.

In article , frozenNorth123
@gm.nospam.ail.com says...

On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:


Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
sensitivity.

This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
their shop dog.

The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back
to the groin, and painted cherry.

And pukey ducks. Can't forget the pukey ducks.

On 2/17/11 10:15 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , frozenNorth123
@gm.nospam.ail.com says...

On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:


Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
sensitivity.

This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
their shop dog.

The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back
to the groin, and painted cherry.

And pukey ducks. Can't forget the pukey ducks.

I forgot pointy sticks too, my humblest of apologies.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

Cooking spray doesn't get people high, people get high.

LOL


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
The point that is continually missed is that people who want to get high
will find a way to get high. People have been known to get high on
cooking spray so you can expect the DEA to ban that next.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

Go **** yourself asshole.

And you're back to your home turf, grade school insults (since that's the
best you're capable of).

Let's see, that would make the sco

Everybody Else 99
You 0

Even pulling the goalie is no longer an option Mr. Screen Name. Better luck
next time.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

You're apparently one of the fortunate ones who's never had a major -- and
sudden -- allergy attack.

If it's that serious a condition for you I'm surprised you don't carry a
couple of doses of the effective medication with you all the time, that you
rely on being able to dash into a store when the allergies strike. I get
three-month supplies of my prescriptions send to me in the mail so there is
never any danger of running out, and all it takes is a phone call to my
doctor to get them renewed annually, I haven't stood in line at a drugstore
in years. I appreciate the severity of your condition, my wife suffers from
allergies in the spring. It just seems to me that a little foresight would
make right-this-minute purchases unnecessary.

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...

That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

If there is no supply ...

If there is a profitable demand, there will be a supply.

Say, whatever happened to stopping the flow from Afghanistan. Taliban was
better at that.

The Taliban banned cultivation and shut off the flow of Afghan opium/heroin
base temporarily to sell off a backlog of supply and drive up prices. But
they never stopped the traffic and continued to tax it. They were most
serious about stopping opium production only in areas where their opposition
was strong, but opium/heroin continues to be a major source of revenue for
the Taliban.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
Even pulling the goalie is no longer an option Mr. Screen Name. Better
luck next time.

Go **** yourself.

A simple response is adequate for you since you don't have the brain power
to deal with anything more complex.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.

Documentation please, that Texas, alone in the universe, is able to keep
drugs out of its prisons.

There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth, the
other in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national centers
(drug-free after being released for one year) is six percent.

Cite?

Compare this to the 30% of released criminals who do not return to prison
and you'll see that jail has a better outcome than treatment for
addiciton.

I don't see that because you're pulling numbers out of thin air, and you're
the guy who said the U.S. Coast Guard was in effect the 2nd largest navy in
the world or whatever it was you posted. If you can back up these numbers,
fine, but I'm going to need something other than dimly remembered stats from
some LE seminar in a previous century. To start with you need to show that
convicts who don't go back to prison are not using drugs on the outside, and
the only way to prove that is if they're all peeing in a cup forever.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.

People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
consumption don't belong in prison in the first place. If they're holding
up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're doing is using a
street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If you have a couple of
shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while watching The Good Guys it doesn't
cause society any problems, ditto if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save
prison for those who actually harm others.

On Feb 17, 1:31*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:


Documentation please,

Cite?

Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.

On Feb 17, 9:16*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

Besides, if the rehab works (and sometimes it doesn't) then you're
looking at a one-time expense. *For the same money you get to lock up
someone for just a year of perhaps a multi-year sentence, and the
odds of them returning to prison are high. *So which approach seems
like a better use of the taxpayer's dollar? *Half of all federal
prison inmates are there for drug offenses, and prisons cost the
American taxpayer over $60 billion a year--I think exploring
alternatives is at least worth trying.

Put 'em to work. They earn money while in jail, and it's paid out
when they're released if there have been no problems. Some of the
money goes directly to their family if the family is on support. If
there's a victim, a percentage, based on the severity of the crime,
goes to the victim.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.

And every man is an island, right? Who's supporting the
incarcerated's family while they're in the pokey? Oh, right - you and
me.

You are a Jedi Master at cherry picking data and ignoring variables.

R

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:12:01 -0800, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques"
That's ridiculous, Lob. If there were no demand, there would be no
dealer. Fix the -addicts- and the dealers will die off. Execute the
dealers for all their other crimes, though.

Fix the addicts??? What kind of asshole are you? And yeah, you deserve
that response for an ingnorant comment.

If the capability to 'Fix the addicts' was even half as easy as your
assinine comment would suggest, it would have been done already and the
dealers would be starving for new users.

Any future comments you might have go in the bit bucket despite any
validity to them.

Asshole. You're a really big ****ing asshole. Bet you know it too.

Jeez, Chill!

Now you see why he's firmly TWIT filtered here. g

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

You're apparently one of the fortunate ones who's never had a major -- and
sudden -- allergy attack.

If it's that serious a condition for you I'm surprised you don't carry a
couple of doses of the effective medication with you all the time, that you
rely on being able to dash into a store when the allergies strike. I get
three-month supplies of my prescriptions send to me in the mail so there is
never any danger of running out, and all it takes is a phone call to my
doctor to get them renewed annually, I haven't stood in line at a drugstore
in years. I appreciate the severity of your condition, my wife suffers from
allergies in the spring. It just seems to me that a little foresight would
make right-this-minute purchases unnecessary.

It's not just a convenience issue. OTC, store brand equivalents of Sudafed are
about five bucks for a box of two dozen doses. Adding a visit to a physician
to get a prescription raises the cost by a factor of eight.

More than that, though, is the utter impossibility of ever stopping the drug
problem by attacking the supply side. As long as demand exists, someone will
produce a supply to satisfy that demand. The demand may shift to other
intoxicants, but as long as there is a demand, there will always be a supply.
Treating the demand as a criminal issue doesn't work. The only apparent way to
reduce the demand is by treating it as a public health problem: education
regarding the dangers, and working to reduce the social conditions that make
drug use seem a desirable way of dealing with life's misfortunes.

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
consumption don't belong in prison in the first place.

Exactly so.

If they're holding
up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're doing is using a
street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If you have a couple of
shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while watching The Good Guys it doesn't
cause society any problems, ditto if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save
prison for those who actually harm others.

AMEN!

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:38:41 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Feb 17, 1:31*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:


Documentation please,

Cite?

Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.

Please plonk the troll so we don't have to watch yet another schizoid
embolism explode here. Thanks.

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


Go **** yourself.

Aren't you the guy who was out of this thread several posts back?

A simple response is adequate for you since you don't have the brain power
to deal with anything more complex.

The rest of the world is all idiots, you're the only smart guy here. Got
it.

On 2/17/2011 2:13 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articledrGdnYvOyMbp9MDQnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote:
People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
consumption don't belong in prison in the first place.

Exactly so.

If they're holding
up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're doing is using a
street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If you have a couple of
shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while watching The Good Guys it doesn't
cause society any problems, ditto if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save
prison for those who actually harm others.

AMEN!


There is a sort of foundational problem with this though: It really
gets in the way of the widespread instinct so many people have to tell
everyone else what to do. (This thread being one prima facia example.)

It never ceases to amaze me that individuals that wouldn't think of
sticking their noses into their neighbor's business, are only too
happy to do exactly that when the means is indirect by use of their
government.

There is some deeply twisted psychology that brings together the
people that want to tell you what to eat, drink, smoke, snort, chew,
or shoot, how to be married, how to be a parent, what to wear in a car
or motorcycle, and of course, how to spend your money. As individuals,
humans are pretty decent on the whole. In groups, they behave like
obnoxious Nosey Parkers.

I rather like P.J. O'Rourke's quote on the matter -

"There are just two rules of governance in a free society:
Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself."

On Feb 17, 3:21*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:38:41 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

wrote:
On Feb 17, 1:31 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

Documentation please,

Cite?

Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.

Please plonk the troll so we don't have to watch yet another schizoid
embolism explode here. *Thanks.

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Storm Jameson

Yabbut..yabbut.....

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


It's not just a convenience issue. OTC, store brand equivalents of Sudafed
are
about five bucks for a box of two dozen doses. Adding a visit to a
physician
to get a prescription raises the cost by a factor of eight.

I assume you see your doctor once a year even if you're in good health, so
it's not like you'd need to make a special trip. And once you have a
prescription a phone call is usually all that is needed to renew it.
Happily my prescriptions are all available as generics now, nice and cheap.
One doctor tried to move me to a new brand-name drug awhile back, several
hundred bucks a month as opposed to a fifteen dollar co-pay: I told him to
try again.

More than that, though, is the utter impossibility of ever stopping the
drug
problem by attacking the supply side.

It worked with Quaaludes, the limited number of mfg. meant it was possible
to choke it off. It hasn't totally disappeared but you rarely even hear of
it these days.

As long as demand exists, someone will
produce a supply to satisfy that demand.

Sure, the profit motive is a powerful force. But in the case of in effect
synthetic drugs which require certain raw ingredients it's possible to
restrict the supply of those ingredients and thus sharply reduce the
quantity and strength of what appears on the street. This has already
happened with meth, the strength of what is sold on the street has gone down
as restrictions of products containing the raw ingredients have taken hold.
I agree we're never going to stamp it out, but judging by what happened with
Quaaludes we can sure knock it down in a way we will never be able to do
with any drug derived from a plant.

The only apparent way to
reduce the demand is by treating it as a public health problem: education
regarding the dangers, and working to reduce the social conditions that
make
drug use seem a desirable way of dealing with life's misfortunes.

Very true, treating drug use as a criminal matter hasn't worked. All we've
accomplished is the enrichment of a huge criminal underworld, and look at
what that's doing to Mexico these days.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

Documentation please,

Cite?

Do your own homework you lazy cocksucker.

Oh dear, it appears your feelings are still hurt, poor thing.

The way it works is the guy who makes a fact & figures sort of claim needs
to back it up, it isn't the job of anyone else to prove him wrong. So if
someone claims that Robotboy is actually a 16-year-old girl with emotional
issues I'll still need to see convincing evidence of that however much that
claim would explain much of what you post.

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


It's not just a convenience issue. OTC, store brand equivalents of Sudafed are
about five bucks for a box of two dozen doses. Adding a visit to a physician
to get a prescription raises the cost by a factor of eight.

I assume you see your doctor once a year even if you're in good health, so
it's not like you'd need to make a special trip. And once you have a
prescription a phone call is usually all that is needed to renew it.
[...]
Yes, that's all true, but why should the law-abiding be the ones to suffer for
the acts of the lawless? I think this bill in Indiana is going to pass, and I
predict that shortly after it becomes law we're going to see a significant
increase in armed robberies at pharmacies.

More than that, though, is the utter impossibility of ever stopping the drug
problem by attacking the supply side.

It worked with Quaaludes, the limited number of mfg. meant it was possible
to choke it off. It hasn't totally disappeared but you rarely even hear of
it these days.

And the net effect on the drug problem was nil, as the abusers simply switched
to different drugs that were easier to obtain.

Attacking the supply side *cannot* stop the problem. We tried that in the 20s
with alcohol. It didn't work. We've been trying it for more than 40 years with
pot, meth, cocaine, you name it, and it's not working.

As long as demand exists, someone will
produce a supply to satisfy that demand.

Sure, the profit motive is a powerful force. But in the case of in effect
synthetic drugs which require certain raw ingredients it's possible to
restrict the supply of those ingredients and thus sharply reduce the
quantity and strength of what appears on the street. This has already
happened with meth, the strength of what is sold on the street has gone down
as restrictions of products containing the raw ingredients have taken hold.
I agree we're never going to stamp it out, but judging by what happened with
Quaaludes we can sure knock it down in a way we will never be able to do
with any drug derived from a plant.

And the abusers will switch to drugs with plant sources. That accomplishes
what, exactly?

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...

Put 'em to work. They earn money while in jail, and it's paid out
when they're released if there have been no problems. Some of the
money goes directly to their family if the family is on support. If
there's a victim, a percentage, based on the severity of the crime,
goes to the victim.

I like it. Sewing mail bags, stamping license plates, growing the food they
eat makes sense too. Repaying victims is something that is addressed all
too rarely.

You are a Jedi Master at cherry picking data and ignoring variables.

He's pretty good at repeating urban myths and political propaganda as if it
was documented fact too.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Agreed. I don't know that I'd support full legalization of everything;
there
seems to be substantial reason to restrict some of the more dangerous
substances. OTOH, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that supports
regulating marijuana more stringently than we do alcohol. Quite the
contrary,
in fact: alcohol seems much the more dangerous of the two.

Yup, decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would cover a lot of
what is being discussed here. Criminal sanctions for traffickers is another
matter, that might very well stay on the books for particularly destructive
drugs like meth or crack.

On Feb 17, 3:30*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Upscale" *wrote in message

...

Go **** yourself.

Aren't you the guy who was out of this thread several posts back?

A simple response is adequate for you since you don't have the brain power
to deal with anything more complex.

The rest of the world is all idiots, you're the only smart guy here. *Got
it.

And here *I* thought YOU, Devvy, were the only smart guy here. You
sure try awful hard to come out 'on top'..even 'on top' of useless
arguments.
Idiot.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...


And here *I* thought YOU, Devvy, were the only smart guy here. You
sure try awful hard to come out 'on top'..even 'on top' of useless
arguments.
Idiot.

Is the concept of "irony" in your lexicon, Robotboy?

On Feb 17, 6:46*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Robatoy" *wrote in message

...

And here *I* thought YOU, Devvy, were the only smart guy here. You
sure try awful hard to come out 'on top'..even 'on top' of useless
arguments.
Idiot.

Is the concept of "irony" in your lexicon, Robotboy?

I see it bothers you to be called Devvy.

I was waiting for a tray of stuffed peppers to bake, so I had a little
time to waste.
So I did a little Googling and lo and behold DGDevin is an asshole in
LOTS of other newsgroups too.
Same MO, same weak ****, and of course ALL other people are stupid.
Doesn't matter what the topic is, Devvy steers it to a point where he
can claim (often weak) victory.
Devvy likes nothing better than belittling people.
Signs of a bully.
I LIKE beating up on bullies. They need to be taught a lesson. Most of
them, and I have every reason to believe Devvy is one of them, will
run away with their tails between their legs, especially in a real
time situation.

You're an asshole, Devvy... to the core.

Ooopps.. the oven just beeped... have a nice day, Devvy, I shall not
waste any more time today dealing with your transparent weak-ass
trolling. ( I said today.. I may decide to tickle you under your chin
at a later date.)

"FrozenNorth" wrote in message
...
On 2/17/11 1:13 AM, Upscale wrote:


Are you really that dense? I was responding to your harshness and lack of
sensitivity.

This is the wreck, the only time for sensitivity is when someone loses
their shop dog.

The rest of the time we want stories about router accidents, kick back to
the groin, and painted cherry.


ROTFLMAO!

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
the
consequences of your bad choices?

Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
choice?

Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out
was
in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is
indeed
a
bad choice.

Do try to pay attention.

What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient
insurance?

Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had
not
spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort
insurance.
I
think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
health insurance is a poor choice.


For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.

There is always a choice.


You ever been addicted?

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then
what?
Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to
pay the consequences of your bad choices?


Who Decides? You? Me?

The new Death Panels.



Sounds about right.

--
Ever wonder why doctors, dentists and lawyers have to Practice so much? Ever
wonder why you let them Practice on You?

In article , "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Upscale" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
When your liver rots out and you have no health insurance, then what?

Then you die. Sounds harsh, but really, why should others have to pay
the
consequences of your bad choices?

Really ignorant response Doug. What if it's not the result of a bad
choice?

Really ignorant comment Upscale. The question about livers rotting out
was
in
the context of discussing the effects of alcohol abuse -- which is
indeed
a
bad choice.

Do try to pay attention.

What if it's the result of not being able to afford sufficient
insurance?

Perhaps if the hypothetical owner of the hypothetical rotted liver had
not
spent all his money on booze, he would have been able to affort
insurance.
I
think you'd agree that choosing to spend your money on liquor instead of
health insurance is a poor choice.


For some people, after the first drink there is no longer a choice.

There is always a choice.

You ever been addicted?


My wife was, to cigarettes. She quit. She made the choice to quit. If there
truly was "no choice" then no one would ever be able to break an addiction.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
You ever been addicted?
My wife was, to cigarettes. She quit. She made the choice to quit. If
there
truly was "no choice" then no one would ever be able to break an
addiction.

Not good enough. We all know someone who has quit something somewhere
sometime, even someone as close as your wife. Perhaps if you had more than a
vague second hand experience with being seriously addicted, then you might
just possibly be a little more understanding. In the end, your attitude and
comments mean that you're too nonchalant and dismissive to really give a
damn for the difficulties that others face.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.

Documentation please, that Texas, alone in the universe, is able to
keep drugs out of its prisons.


You are, of course, correct. Some drugs make it into the best of prisons.

There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth,
the other in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national
centers (drug-free after being released for one year) is six percent.

Cite?



Since my training, and to my regret, there are now more federal drug
treatment centers.
* Federal Prison Camp, Forrest City, AK
* Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, New Jersey
* Federal Medical Center, Ft Worth
and a few others.

If you need a specific cite, you can quote me.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.

People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
consumption don't belong in prison in the first place. If they're
holding up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're
doing is using a street drug then prison is a waste of public money. If
you have a couple of shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while
watching The Good Guys it doesn't cause society any problems, ditto
if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save prison for those who
actually harm others.

How do you think someone in possession GOT to be in possession? Did the
stuff miracle itself into his pocket?

In all likelihood, he bought it. With money stolen from somebody else. That
stolen money or property is wealth taken out of the community.

Now you would probably argue that the money going to his dealer is put BACK
into the community when the dealer blings up his teeth, but this sort of
"broken window" economics, so beloved by Keynesians and Democrats, is a flaw
of gigantic proportions.

HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Further, virtually all of the inmates are drug free upon release.

Documentation please, that Texas, alone in the universe, is able to
keep drugs out of its prisons.


You are, of course, correct. Some drugs make it into the best of
prisons.
There are two national drug treatment facilities. One in Ft Worth,
the other in Leavenworth. The BEST success rate for these national
centers (drug-free after being released for one year) is six
percent.

Cite?



Since my training, and to my regret, there are now more federal drug
treatment centers.
* Federal Prison Camp, Forrest City, AK
* Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix, New Jersey
* Federal Medical Center, Ft Worth
and a few others.

If you need a specific cite, you can quote me.

Plus, putting people in prison for extended terms actually SAVES the
taxpayer money in reduced crime.

People whose only crime is possession of a banned drug for their own
consumption don't belong in prison in the first place. If they're
holding up liquor stores that is another matter, but if all they're
doing is using a street drug then prison is a waste of public money.
If you have a couple of shots of Old Overcoat in the evening while
watching The Good Guys it doesn't cause society any problems, ditto
if you smoked a joint instead. Let's save prison for those who
actually harm others.

How do you think someone in possession GOT to be in possession? Did
the stuff miracle itself into his pocket?

In all likelihood, he bought it. With money stolen from somebody
else. That stolen money or property is wealth taken out of the
community.

derivatives


Now you would probably argue that the money going to his dealer is
put BACK into the community when the dealer blings up his teeth, but
this sort of "broken window" economics, so beloved by Keynesians and
Democrats, is a flaw of gigantic proportions.