🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7ta3a2$2te6$5@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
  "Steven Mix" <stevenmix@prodigy.net> wrote:
> wcolley@my-deja.com wrote in message <7t4svr$koa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Greetings All,
> >
> >In article <7t42pf$16n0$9@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Steven Mix" <stevenmix@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> My point is, Scott, that I am not going to let you legalize
> >> crack, heroin and meth, when I am trying to get it out of my
> >> neighborhood.
> >
> >Mr. Mix, I do not think you mean to suggest that Mr. Scott E has the
> >power to legalize drugs in your neighborhood. Do you think that Mr.
> >Scott E, or anyone else for that matter, would resort to violence in
> >order to make yourself or others use crack, heroin, and meth? Just to
be
> >clear, if they did or threatened to do so I would be in favor of
using
> >the force of government to arrest and prosecute them.
>
> I am quite comfortable with the status quo, as it's working
> for me and my community, and showing a very positive
> trend.

Mr. Mix, to belabor a point, do you advocate using violence, either
personally or by someone you have paid for, against peaceful citizens?

> The legalization movement has to get past me politically,
> and from what I have been seeing here, the likelihood of
> that is less and less.

Any legalization movement has to get past much more powerfull political
opponents than yourself Mr. Mix.

> I appreciate the education I have received in the past week,
> because it has opened my eyes to an aspect of the legalization
> movement I had not considered before.  That is, the near total
> indifference to children, the poor inner cities, and the progress
> that has been made at the local level.

While I am not personally indifferent to children or poor inner cities,
I have very little power to solve their problems. Parents are
responsible for their own children, the residents of poor inner cities
(such as yourself) are much more responsible for their own
neighborhoods. However, I do wish to use the little power I have to
advocate peace and freedom. I do not wish to see any peaceful citizen
who has not committed a crime against people or property subjected to
force or violence, and this includes force and violence instigated by
the government. Whenever the government has the power to arrest and
prosecute its citizens for consensual, non-violent behaviour, there is
always a chance that it will someday decide that you or I engage in some
peccadillo that warrents our arrest and incarceration. I do support the
government in arresting and incarcerating individuals who committ crimes
against people or property, regardless of their sobriety or lack
thereof.

> >> I am being quite consistent, about a societal trend for all
> >> recreational mind and mood-altering drugs.  You are not.
> >
> >Does your consistency mean that you believe government should use
force
> >to arrest and incarcerate peaceful citizens who are using alcohol,
> >tobacco, and caffine in ways that do not threaten others? If so, how
is
> >this different from drug addicts using force to further their
addiction?
> >Except for the fact that government has legal authority to use force.
>
> It's way too late for the alcohol and tobacco are worse drugs
> argument.  Fact is, smoking is being restricted, more people
> are being encouraged to quit, and rights of citizens to be
> protected from second-hand smoke are gaining ground.

My argument, Mr. Mix, is a violence argument. Do you advocate and
support violence against peaceful citizens by the government?

> With alcohol, education is improving, billboard advertising
> is being reduced, and corner liquor stores are being closed
> and denied permitting.  Drunk driving laws are tightening,
> colleges are discouraging binging.  There's more.

Any and all social efforts to curtail consumption of alcohol do not
bother me. Using violence against peaceful citizens, regardless of their
behaviour, does. Are you bothered by violence Mr. Mix?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.