0

For the record: Gordon Brown wants to change pot back to class B over here. At the moment you can smoke it in public and all they can do is give you an "informal warning" and take it off you. Apparently half a million english are hooked on weed..

0

yeah i know that there is some ghettoish bits but thats how it is here too :)

Would not really call it a ghetto mainly because they tend to just live outside. Like if you go to the lawns of old parliment house. What used to be a "tent embassy" has turned into a stack of people walking around barefoot and drinking.

0

Actually, i know of a doctor who visited one of the islands in the caribbean and he says, he visits there often to use marijuana because he benefits from it...that's from a doctor...additionally, it has been used to make clothing....i've seen someone used it to cure a sore they had on their foot.

0

hmm a rather old thread this one.

The Marajuana used to make clothing and rope that you refer to actually comes from the male plant. It is actually only the female plant that is able to produce the effects that make it attractive. The same goes for the doctors that still smoke or drink heavily.

Some of the healing properties described could be considered more a placebo effect rather then an actual effect. While smoking it can trigger a response in the brain that may speed up the healing process through the chemicals released by the brain as a result, however i doubt this is the case with the person who used it to fix a sore on their foot. Really i think its "healing properties" are simply used as an excuse to smoke it especially as there are much better methods and treatments for any of the problems that it is being used to "cure".

Before you start going on about cancer patients and similar circumstances where it is used let me just remind you that in these cases it is used as a relief for the pain and not as an actual cure.

0

Yeah.
I've always (not really), wanted to try vicodin since I started watching House. Not that I'm impressionable or anything...

0

Before you start going on about cancer patients and similar circumstances where it is used let me just remind you that in these cases it is used as a relief for the pain and not as an actual cure.

Actually, in cancer patients, the primary use is to reduce nausea and loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy. It does have other beneficial effects beyond those two as well. Though not some magical panacea for all ailments, it's medical benefits are well beyond "just an excuse to get high".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana#Indications

0

There are several effects of drugs (including marijuana) that affect others who want nothing to do with drugs:

1. I have known people before and after they used drugs (primarily pot), and the drugs changed them permanently. I noticed most of the following changes in each of them:
- A lack of logical thinking.
- A craving to pursue unlucrative liberal arts or music, instead of high paying jobs.
- A belief that they should be paid for the art or music they make, regardless of whether or not there is a demand for it.
- A shift to the left in political beliefs.
- A tendency to believe the wacky schemes politicians propose just to get votes could really work.
- A drive to get more drugs, often so strong that they could harm someone.
- A lack of concern about the consequences of the the user's actions.

2. Too many drug users are careless or accident-prone. This was the original reason drugs were banned. And remember that others can be harmed by the carelessness of drug-using workers:
- Most insurers require a drug-free workplace. Drug use causes the cancellation of the company's liability insurance, especially in factories.
- One automotive recall in the 1990s was caused by a drug user on the assembly line assembling wheel bearings wrong. At least 2 crashes were caused by wheels falling off, traced to this defect. But the real cause was not widely publicized.
- We had 4 publicized auto crash fatalities in a 2-year span due solely to pot use. Only one of those killed was the drugged driver. There were probably more, but the police test for alcohol first, and don't bother to test for drugs if the alcohol test shows an illegal level.

3. Families are deprived when the wage-earner uses drugs, as the wage earner is driven to buy drugs, rather than provide for his family.

4. Drug use, or the withdrawal from drug intoxication, often leads to fights. Many of those fights are over drugs.

5. Marijuana and LSD have a side-effect that most other drugs do not have - secondhand use. Smoke from pot use can affect others, as can a windborne mote of LSD.

6. Marijuana has all of the cancer risks that tobacco has when it is smoked.

0

There are several effects of drugs (including marijuana) that affect others who want nothing to do with drugs:

1. I have known people before and after they used drugs (primarily pot), and the drugs changed them permanently. I noticed most of the following changes in each of them:
- A lack of logical thinking.
- A craving to pursue unlucrative liberal arts or music, instead of high paying jobs.
- A belief that they should be paid for the art or music they make, regardless of whether or not there is a demand for it.
- A shift to the left in political beliefs.
- A tendency to believe the wacky schemes politicians propose just to get votes could really work.
- A drive to get more drugs, often so strong that they could harm someone.
- A lack of concern about the consequences of the the user's actions.

hahahaa... WOW! Aside from the last two, everything you listed is absolutely ridiculous. But of course, coming from you that is almost expected.. Perhaps try backing up your claims instead of just blabbing a bunch of bull.

2. Too many drug users are careless or accident-prone. This was the original reason drugs were banned. And remember that others can be harmed by the carelessness of drug-using workers:
- Most insurers require a drug-free workplace. Drug use causes the cancellation of the company's liability insurance, especially in factories.
- One automotive recall in the 1990s was caused by a drug user on the assembly line assembling wheel bearings wrong. At least 2 crashes were caused by wheels falling off, traced to this defect. But the real cause was not widely publicized.
- We had 4 publicized auto crash fatalities in a 2-year span due solely to pot use. Only one of those killed was the drugged driver. There were probably more, but the police test for alcohol first, and don't bother to test for drugs if the alcohol test shows an illegal level.

Oh, the original reason drugs were banned.. you would know, of course. Once again, all I see is a bunch of crap and no evidence to back any of it up. Do you like posting garbage?

3. Families are deprived when the wage-earner uses drugs, as the wage earner is driven to buy drugs, rather than provide for his family.

4. Drug use, or the withdrawal from drug intoxication, often leads to fights. Many of those fights are over drugs.

5. Marijuana and LSD have a side-effect that most other drugs do not have - secondhand use. Smoke from pot use can affect others, as can a windborne mote of LSD.

6. Marijuana has all of the cancer risks that tobacco has when it is smoked.

Secondhand smoke? Smoking anything produces that! There is cancer in almost everything you smoke too! Damn dude.. if you seriously did just a little bit of research, then you wouldn't look like a damned fool. I mean, you're intelligent enough to know how to use a computer, and access the internet.. just take this knowledge a bit further and pull up www.google.com. All you have to do is type that in the browser address bar. Then, you will be taken to google's website, a search engine. From here, you can enter in all your bs, and it will instantly be refuted. This way, you don't have to post anything idiotic in these forums. You're Welcome :)

0

hahahaa... WOW! Aside from the last two, everything you listed is absolutely ridiculous. But of course, coming from you that is almost expected.. Perhaps try backing up your claims instead of just blabbing a bunch of bull.

Oh, the original reason drugs were banned.. you would know, of course. Once again, all I see is a bunch of crap and no evidence to back any of it up. Do you like posting garbage?

Secondhand smoke? Smoking anything produces that! There is cancer in almost everything you smoke too! Damn dude.. if you seriously did just a little bit of research, then you wouldn't look like a damned fool. I mean, you're intelligent enough to know how to use a computer, and access the internet.. just take this knowledge a bit further and pull up www.google.com. All you have to do is type that in the browser address bar. Then, you will be taken to google's website, a search engine. From here, you can enter in all your bs, and it will instantly be refuted. This way, you don't have to post anything idiotic in these forums. You're Welcome :)

Josh: This sort of Post is alot more idiotic then what Midi said and completely unnecessary. While i do not agree with all of the things that Midi said he was at least on topic.

Midi: I agree that they are one of the major reasons that drugs were banned to begin with and i definatly agree that drugs that result in the harm of others should be banned. However i think that the arguments that you used work better when talking about drug legalization as a whole and not specifically pot.

0

the active ingredients of marihuana, like the active ingredients of heroine, can be used as painkillers under controlled conditions.
As they're both addictive, they should not be available except under medical supervision.

In fact the active ingredient of heroine is already so available, it's called morphine.
The availability of morphine under controlled conditions doesn't mean that heroine should be available freely...
I've seen the results of morphine addiction at close range several times (both my parents had it more than once after serious surgery), and it ain't pretty.
And that's the clean, refined, stuff, without the mirriad poluting substances that ravage the body and leave the user a physical wreck that make up heroine.

0

I think that if someone decides that they want to start using a substance like pot then it should be their own choice as long as it does not affect other people also as long as other people don"t have to pay for their choices when they become ill as a result of the substance

sorry about the lack of puntuation stick keys or something has been turned on

0

Josh: This sort of Post is alot more idiotic then what Midi said and completely unnecessary. While i do not agree with all of the things that Midi said he was at least on topic.

What? How so? I just showed midi-magic that his arguments mean precisely jack shit. All his arguments were based off his specific experiences, and don't apply to this situation at all. If you're going to make an argument for/against something then you should always post some evidence to back your claims up.. otherwise what the hell is the point?

I think that if someone decides that they want to start using a substance like pot then it should be their own choice as long as it does not affect other people also as long as other people don"t have to pay for their choices when they become ill as a result of the substance

Yeah, it's your freedom to do whatever the hell you want. If it's harmful to yourself and you wish to do it anyway, then that's your problem. People can think for themselves.. so let people decide for themselves. Smoking cigarettes is known to cause lung cancer along with other things (see Dave's previous thread for information :P). However, smoking is still legal. What's the difference? People use drugs anyway.. we might was well legalize them, lower crime, and tax the drugs to make money off them.

0

There are several effects of drugs (including marijuana) that affect others who want nothing to do with drugs:

1. I have known people before and after they used drugs (primarily pot), and the drugs changed them permanently. I noticed most of the following changes in each of them:
- A lack of logical thinking.

I know many professional engineers, software developers, and mathmaticians who have smoked pot. Do you believe these lack logical thinking? I don't think your observation has merit as empirical.

- A craving to pursue unlucrative liberal arts or music, instead of high paying jobs.
- A belief that they should be paid for the art or music they make, regardless of whether or not there is a demand for it.

You believe any tendency towards art or music is entirely unlucrative (sic)? The Rolling Stones may disagree with you. The second statement is entirely baseless.

- A shift to the left in political beliefs.

Ah, so here again your fear of anything vaguely nearing your definition of "liberal" comes into play. I can assure you there are plenty of republicans who have smoked a little still running around.

- A tendency to believe the wacky schemes politicians propose just to get votes could really work.

What? Smoking dope makes people believe politicians?? I think a lot of people who lived through the 60s and 70s might disagree with that.

- A drive to get more drugs, often so strong that they could harm someone.

This is not in the least associated with marijuana use. Blatantly false. Marijuana has not been found to be addictice. Look it up.

- A lack of concern about the consequences of the the user's actions.

This may be your only valid observation so far - a lessening of inhibition and caution.

2. Too many drug users are careless or accident-prone. This was the original reason drugs were banned.

False. Marijuana was made illegal out of bigotry and fear of Mexicans and African-Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States#Racial_underpinnings

And remember that others can be harmed by the carelessness of drug-using workers:
- Most insurers require a drug-free workplace. Drug use causes the cancellation of the company's liability insurance, especially in factories.
- One automotive recall in the 1990s was caused by a drug user on the assembly line assembling wheel bearings wrong. At least 2 crashes were caused by wheels falling off, traced to this defect. But the real cause was not widely publicized.

Well, yes, any drug which can temporarily impair mental function can cause accidents. Even antihistamines and cough syrup can impair one's ability in this manner. We can't make everything that can cause accidents if used irresponsibly illegal though.

- We had 4 publicized auto crash fatalities in a 2-year span due solely to pot use. Only one of those killed was the drugged driver. There were probably more, but the police test for alcohol first, and don't bother to test for drugs if the alcohol test shows an illegal level.

Wow! Four in only 2 years?! How many non-pot-related fatal crashes were there just out of curiosity?

3. Families are deprived when the wage-earner uses drugs, as the wage earner is driven to buy drugs, rather than provide for his family.

Families are also deprived when the wage-earner is lazy or just plain unskilled. Sometimes these low-income people make poor choices with the money they do have, such as frivolous impulse spending, gambling, etc. We haven't made that illegal though. It drives the economy.

4. Drug use, or the withdrawal from drug intoxication, often leads to fights. Many of those fights are over drugs.

You've seen a lot of people high on pot starting fights have you? Funny. That's been just the opposite of my observations. Also, there are no withdrawal effects from marijuana.

5. Marijuana and LSD have a side-effect that most other drugs do not have - secondhand use. Smoke from pot use can affect others, as can a windborne mote of LSD.

I hardly consider second-hand pot smoke a great danger given the other pollutants we inhale daily, but you are correct that smoke from anything isn't exactly healthy. "Windbourne mote of LSD"?!? Do you know anything about LSD at all? It's a liquid that is often soaked into blotter paper or sugar cubes for ingestion. You should be more concerned with a wind-born house falling on your skull than a "mote of LSD".

6. Marijuana has all of the cancer risks that tobacco has when it is smoked.

Most inhaled smoke carries a risk of cancer. Marijuana users smoke far less of it than a cigarette smoker, but yes, we've agreed that smoke inhalation isn't really good for the lungs.

In so far as marijuana is concerned, nearly all of these claims are without merit and show a great ignorance of the matter. Note I said ignorance - which I hope you realize differs from stupidity. Stupidity is to continue to believe or espouse ignorant things once you've learned more of them. Don't make that mistake. Do more reading on the things I've posted. Don't just take my word for it. (I highly doubt I have to worry about that too much).

I have smoked a little pot long ago. I have not in quite some time. I still manage to develop software for a living, so I guess I've managed to maintain some semblance of logical thinking. Enough at least to be a responsible wage-earner and citizen.

0

A valiant effort Ezzaral! To argue with a righteous righty is like trying to convince the pope to switch religion.

0

I think that if someone decides that they want to start using a substance like pot then it should be their own choice as long as it does not affect other people also as long as other people don"t have to pay for their choices when they become ill as a result of the substance

Problem is it inevitably does affect other people.
Their productivity at work goes down, leading to loss of revenue and/or increased workload for colleagues.
Eventually they end up getting fired and drawing social security, another drain on society (this time through them using up tax revenue).
Social security won't cover the cost of their addiction so they resort to crime. This directly affects their victims who end up traumatised or dead, and indirectly affects all of society through the depletion of police and justice resources and increase in their funding (out of tax revenue) needed which leads to tax increases or reduced government services elsewhere.
They end up in hospital uninsured or underinsured, again at the expense of others (taxpayers or people who do pay their insurance premiums).
In the end they may end up in a police morgue, again taking up time and resources of the police and justice system.

0

I know many professional engineers, software developers, and mathmaticians who have smoked pot. Do you believe these lack logical thinking? I don't think your observation has merit as empirical.
You believe any tendency towards art or music is entirely unlucrative (sic)? The Rolling Stones may disagree with you. The second statement is entirely baseless.

Ah, so here again your fear of anything vaguely nearing your definition of "liberal" comes into play. I can assure you there are plenty of republicans who have smoked a little still running around.
What? Smoking dope makes people believe politicians?? I think a lot of people who lived through the 60s and 70s might disagree with that.
This is not in the least associated with marijuana use. Blatantly false. Marijuana has not been found to be addictice. Look it up.
This may be your only valid observation so far - a lessening of inhibition and caution.

False. Marijuana was made illegal out of bigotry and fear of Mexicans and African-Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States#Racial_underpinnings
Well, yes, any drug which can temporarily impair mental function can cause accidents. Even antihistamines and cough syrup can impair one's ability in this manner. We can't make everything that can cause accidents if used irresponsibly illegal though.
Wow! Four in only 2 years?! How many non-pot-related fatal crashes were there just out of curiosity?
Families are also deprived when the wage-earner is lazy or just plain unskilled. Sometimes these low-income people make poor choices with the money they do have, such as frivolous impulse spending, gambling, etc. We haven't made that illegal though. It drives the economy.
You've seen a lot of people high on pot starting fights have you? Funny. That's been just the opposite of my observations. Also, there are no withdrawal effects from marijuana.
I hardly consider second-hand pot smoke a great danger given the other pollutants we inhale daily, but you are correct that smoke from anything isn't exactly healthy. "Windbourne mote of LSD"?!? Do you know anything about LSD at all? It's a liquid that is often soaked into blotter paper or sugar cubes for ingestion. You should be more concerned with a wind-born house falling on your skull than a "mote of LSD".
Most inhaled smoke carries a risk of cancer. Marijuana users smoke far less of it than a cigarette smoker, but yes, we've agreed that smoke inhalation isn't really good for the lungs.

In so far as marijuana is concerned, nearly all of these claims are without merit and show a great ignorance of the matter. Note I said ignorance - which I hope you realize differs from stupidity. Stupidity is to continue to believe or espouse ignorant things once you've learned more of them. Don't make that mistake. Do more reading on the things I've posted. Don't just take my word for it. (I highly doubt I have to worry about that too much).

I have smoked a little pot long ago. I have not in quite some time. I still manage to develop software for a living, so I guess I've managed to maintain some semblance of logical thinking. Enough at least to be a responsible wage-earner and citizen.

damn.. nice job ezzaral.. You basically explained why he is an idiot as opposed to me, who just summed all that up.. but we both came to the same conclusion..

0

damn.. nice job ezzaral.. You basically explained why he is an idiot as opposed to me, who just summed all that up.. but we both came to the same conclusion..

Well, no, I pointed out a lot of problems with his generalizations which I believe stem from limited experience and subjective observation. That doesn't necessarily make someone an idiot.

0

Problem is it inevitably does affect other people.
Their productivity at work goes down, leading to loss of revenue and/or increased workload for colleagues.
Eventually they end up getting fired and drawing social security, another drain on society (this time through them using up tax revenue).
Social security won't cover the cost of their addiction so they resort to crime. This directly affects their victims who end up traumatised or dead, and indirectly affects all of society through the depletion of police and justice resources and increase in their funding (out of tax revenue) needed which leads to tax increases or reduced government services elsewhere.
They end up in hospital uninsured or underinsured, again at the expense of others (taxpayers or people who do pay their insurance premiums).
In the end they may end up in a police morgue, again taking up time and resources of the police and justice system.

This is a much more reasoned and real danger of drug use by irresponsible people.

0

Problem is it inevitably does affect other people.
Their productivity at work goes down, leading to loss of revenue and/or increased workload for colleagues.
Eventually they end up getting fired and drawing social security, another drain on society (this time through them using up tax revenue).
Social security won't cover the cost of their addiction so they resort to crime. This directly affects their victims who end up traumatised or dead, and indirectly affects all of society through the depletion of police and justice resources and increase in their funding (out of tax revenue) needed which leads to tax increases or reduced government services elsewhere.
They end up in hospital uninsured or underinsured, again at the expense of others (taxpayers or people who do pay their insurance premiums).
In the end they may end up in a police morgue, again taking up time and resources of the police and justice system.

Great words! Also need to mention that alcohol does the same thing at a much larger scale! However, we all know that prohibition did not work well.

0

Great words! Also need to mention that alcohol does the same thing at a much larger scale! However, we all know that prohibition did not work well.

True, which should act as an argument against legalizing other substances. The major reason that Prohibition failed stems from the fact that alcoholic drinks, in their various forms, had become acceptable through usage over history. Assuming you could drop Andrew Volstead back in ancient Greece or Mesopotamia, and he were successful, then I'd presume wine/beer usage would be less acceptable today, and thus less likely to occur.

0

Well, no, I pointed out a lot of problems with his generalizations which I believe stem from limited experience and subjective observation. That doesn't necessarily make someone an idiot.

Simply arguing based off one's limited, personal experiences shows ignorance. If you see one event occur, and then assume everything that comes after will result the same way then that is ignorance.. his inductive arguments were very weak and stupid. So, yeah.. if you are going to argue something without actually knowing anything about the subject then you are an idiot.

1

In so far as marijuana is concerned, nearly all of these claims are without merit and show a great ignorance of the matter.

No, it's from reading both sides of the issue, not just the liberal spiel that says there is nothing wrong with pot.

The original event of making pot illegal WAS in that Wiki site, but they glossed it over, just giving the place (New York) and the date (1900). It was made illegal for two reasons:

  1. People using it in the workplace were getting injured.
  2. Those injured people, and those who wouldn't work because they didn't care, weren't earning the money to pay their taxes with.

In other words, government feared losing tax revenue. The racial component came later.

Do more reading on the things I've posted. Don't just take my word for it. (I highly doubt I have to worry about that too much).

I have read all that stuff, and much more that contradicts it. I don't believe the pro-pot part of it (probably because it looks like it was written by pot users justifying themselves). I also notice that liberals never believe anything a conservative says that contradicts the liberal dogma.

I have smoked a little pot long ago. I have not in quite some time. I still manage to develop software for a living, so I guess I've managed to maintain some semblance of logical thinking. Enough at least to be a responsible wage-earner and citizen.

Drug users and environmentalists tend to think their emotional thinking is really logical. I have been at too many zoning and highway planning hearings to believe otherwise.

The kind of logical thinking I am talking about are the decisions that affect our lives. The drug users and former drug users usually are the ones who believe things like the following:

  • If we impeach President Bush, John Kerry will become President. (If you don't believe me, Google this.)

  • All we have to do is pass a law, and we can bring the troops home with no consequences.

  • National Health Care can actually work without bankrupting the country, and without reducing the quality of health care.

  • The voting machine companies doctored the vote. (They would go bankrupt if they actually did it and anyone found out. It would be too big a risk, since they also do bank security systems).

  • President Bush stole the 2000 election by cheating. (Actually, Ralph Nader did it by splitting the environmentalist vote in the faulty Plurality Voting System).

  • People can make money in sports, music or the arts. (A very FEW people can make a lot of money in these professions - the best of the best. The rest are doomed to poverty.)

  • Government can create wealth by spending money. (There is nothing government can do to create wealth, but government cfan destroy wealth by taxing more and spending more.)

  • Al Gore knows what he is doing with respect to Global Warming. (I am shocked that he got the Nobel Prize, because I caught him in the very unscientific behavior of affirming the consequent. His behavior is political, not scientific.)

Edited by diafol: fixed formatting

0

No, it's from reading both sides of the issue, not just the liberal spiel that says there is nothing wrong with pot.

Ah, so any facts about the topic are liberal spiel. Perhaps you read both sides but you obviously discounted any that contradicted your myopic ultra-conservative point of view on the subject.

The original event of making pot illegal WAS in that Wiki site, but they glossed it over, just giving the place (New York) and the date (1900). It was made illegal for two reasons:

1. People using it in the workplace were getting injured.
2. Those injured people, and those who wouldn't work because they didn't care, weren't earning the money to pay their taxes with.

In other words, government feared losing tax revenue. The racial component came later.

Again, nope. Every account that I can find (http://www.google.com/search?q=reason+marijuana+made+illegal&complete=1&hl=en&start=0&sa=N) points towards a campaign to protect the financial interests of a few (Names Hearst and DuPont). Anslinger and Hearst pursued a vigorous "education"(read propaganda) campaign touting the evils of marijuana usage heavily based on racial fears and completely fabricated psychotic effects:

The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

I have read all that stuff, and much more that contradicts it. I don't believe the pro-pot part of it (probably because it looks like it was written by pot users justifying themselves).

Please provide the contradictory information then, as I cannot seem to find it. Provide it and, seriously, I will read it.

I also notice that liberals never believe anything a conservative says that contradicts the liberal dogma.

Drug users and environmentalists tend to think their emotional thinking is really logical. I have been at too many zoning and highway planning hearings to believe otherwise.

Denouncing something as "liberal dogma" simply because you can't accept it doesn't make your case any stronger. Bringing your "liberal" and "conservative" labels into it is just a weak play to cast this into some political debate to get yourself onto some defensible ground. Just to clarify for you, if I had to choose a party identification (which I don't), I would most closely fall into the Libertarian camp. So much for your liberal labels - and where the hell did environmentalists some into play? You're reaching pretty badly here to engender support.

You addressed only one of my points countering your litany of false or subjective assertions. The rest of this post is just a random list of silly things that again attempt to mock a perceived "liberal" bias here and have no relation at all to the matter of discussion.

The kind of logical thinking I am talking about are the decisions that affect our lives. The drug users and former drug users usually are the ones who believe things like the following:

- If we impeach President Bush, John Kerry will become President. (If you don't believe me, Google this.)

- All we have to do is pass a law, and we can bring the troops home with no consequences.

- National Health Care can actually work without bankrupting the country, and without reducing the quality of health care.

- The voting machine companies doctored the vote. (They would go bankrupt if they actually did it and anyone found out. It would be too big a risk, since they also do bank security systems).

- President Bush stole the 2000 election by cheating. (Actually, Ralph Nader did it by splitting the environmentalist vote in the faulty Plurality Voting System).

- People can make money in sports, music or the arts. (A very FEW people can make a lot of money in these professions - the best of the best. The rest are doomed to poverty.)

- Government can create wealth by spending money. (There is nothing government can do to create wealth, but government cfan destroy wealth by taxing more and spending more.)

- Al Gore knows what he is doing with respect to Global Warming. (I am shocked that he got the Nobel Prize, because I caught him in the very unscientific behavior of affirming the consequent. His behavior is political, not scientific.)

Perhaps you need to start another thread to discuss all those, because they are irrelevant diversions.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.