🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43h4en$r0e@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Shadow5867 <shadow5867@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <lambdarising-1609951955400001@lambda-ppp.clark.net>,
>lambdarising@his.com (Deacon Maccubbin) writes:
>
>>Is it your firm grasp on the reality of "a world of beauty" that causes
>>you to write messages of such emotional vindictiveness, personal insult,
>>and ugliness?
>
>Guess what?  After reading the first sentence of your reply I on longer
>"wondered" what side you were on.  

Yeah, that first sentence shown above just radiates "druggieness"...  Not.

Mr. Shadow5867, I don't mean to spoil your strategy, but are you a plant
by the pro-reform side?  Is your purpose to demonstrate the shallowness
of the pro-drug-war "argument" by spouting endless inane ad-hominem and
non-sequitur arguments?

Take, for example, your recent witty rebuttal to my comparison of drug
prohibition to alcohol prohibition.  You claimed that as a result of the
repeal of prohibition, now we have "hundreds" of drunk driving deaths a
year, and followed your claim by some kind of immaterial personal attack.
So let me ask you, here in the open where the audience can judge the
merits of our positions:  Do you believe we would not have drunk driving
deaths if we continued to criminalize alcohol?  Do you feel that drunk
driving did not occur during alcohol prohibition?  Do you feel that drug
prohibition has prevented irresponsible individuals from driving under
the influence?  I feel that the repeal of alcohol prohibition REDUCED
drunk driving, by reducing the average potency of alcoholic beverages
and eliminating some of the impetus for binge drinking.  People sitting
at home and drinking a couple beers constitute much less of a threat
than people driving off to a seedy part of town to drink potent (and
sometimes poisonous) moonshine.  If prohibition has any effect on driving
under the influence, that effect consists of indirect encouragement.
-- David Pletcher