🚀 go-pugleaf

helenn@hprpcd.rose.hp.com (Helen Nusbaum) writes:
>Wilson's veto will do more than send a message, it will cost people
>their lives.

Really?  There was a provision in the bill that the State would kill
people if the Governor failed to sign the bill?

Give us a break.

>Wilson will never know the names or anything else about the people who
>will suffer from his veto.

Sure he does, just as the rest of us do.  The people who will suffer the
consequences of their actions (instead of being protected from that at
the expense of their betters) are drug users.  Nobody else - just drug
users.  These are people who are doing something that's (a) stupid,
(b) illegal, and (c) worthy of condemnation, not protection.

>Let me tell you about one person who might well have been alive today if
>there had been a needle exchange program in California ten years ago.
>She was a talented and compassionate attorney and a dear friend.

No doubt (although "compassionate" attorneys are rare).  She was also
someone who did something very stupid - had a sexual relationship with
someone outside of a lifelong-monogamous relationship, who was also
an IV drug user.

One of the laws of Nature, folks: stupidity is a capital crime.  And
Nature will enforce this law, given half a chance.

>A man she had dated in law school had, unbeknownst to Susan at the time,
>been an intermittant IV drug user and had shared needles with others.

You see, this is the strange part.  This implied usage of the word
"dating" (i.e., "had sex with") is a meaning of the word "dating" with
which I was previously unfamiliar.  How can one be infected with HIV
from simply having dinner with, going to the movies or dancing with,
or otherwise generally platonically interacting with another person,
even one of the opposite sex?

If you want to say "a man she had sex with in law school," do so.
Dating does not imply having sex.

(Perhaps if all of these sob story posters learned English before they
posted their stories, even THEY would realize the real lesson they're
teaching anyone who can think.)

>Had there been a needle-exchange program in San Francisco in 1983, it
>could have saved Susan's life.

Susan was not infected with HIV by a needle.  Susan was infected with
HIV due to her own irresponsible behavior.  I honestly regret that she,
or anyone else, died of AIDS; however, I insist that you face the fact
that "needles don't kill people; people kill people."

>A needle-exchange program in 1994 would save other people's lives.

No, a needle-exchange program will simply make both the public and the
drug users "more comfortable" because they are being shielded from one
of the many dangers associated with drug use.

I have no intention of voting for Pete Wilson (although, having met
the man, I find him to be personally likeable), as I don't think he's
been a good governor. However, I don't believe in protecting people
from the consequences of actions over which they have full control,
and which they have been told (in some cases, "told" for something
over 2000 years) are fraught with negative consequences.

>And in November may you suffer the consequences of your own personal
>choices.

The typical liberal; doesn't mind if conservatives suffer personal
consequences, but pick on gays, druggies or pro-choicers, and watch
the fireworks...

-- 
=======================================================================
The above is not guaranteed to be the opinions of anyone in particular.
=======================================================================
Mark Hartman, N6BMO | E-mail:  emmayche@apple.com | AOL: emmayche
      Macophile     |  Serious Disney enthusiast  | CIS: 75130,1434