Gruss is right when he points out that my money is currently being wasted on a fruitless war against drugs. Gruss is wrong when he suggests that the answer is for me to instead pay for them to get high.
I don't do drugs. I'm not addicted. Someone else chose to do drugs, someone else got addicted, why in holy phuck's sake should I pay for them to do their drugs???? NO NO NO. GG's letting his social liberalism overwhelm is fiscal conservatism. On 6/21/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <g> Do I detect a streak of Calvinism? I am not sure what I think about > the idea myself, but I think Gruss is right that it would case a drop in > crime. I mean -- Amsterdam is *not* known as a violent place. I do dislike > the idea of further governement nannyism....By the way, I am not saying > there is no such experiment in Canada, but if so I have never heard of it. I > kinda sounds like something the Canadians might do. But I suspect that if so > it's in Vancouver not Montreal. > > Just to play devil's advocate for a minute -- you would get to get high > too. If you are smart enough or stable enough not to want to -- well good > for you. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209930 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
