|
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 9, 10:39*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 10/9/2011 9:31 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: On Oct 8, 5:13 pm, Thomas wrote: Am 09.10.2011 00:23, schrieb RHF: Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. - So the single dose could be provided for - very low costs - in case the government - would provide this. It should - of course - be limited to real addictive people and - in fact for free, Alcoholics are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Alcohol for Drunks -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. Tobacco Smokers are 'real addictive people' too ! Equal [RX] Treatment Under the Law would require Free Cigarettes/Cigars for Smokers -if- Free Drugs is provided for Dopers. -again- ? why should 'i' work all day and pay taxes to support someone else not working; pluspay for them to get high/loaded on illegal drugs& alcohol& tobacco ? =no=joy= =no=joy= =no=joy= ~ RHF . The government is not responsible for your daily kicks. What I have written is a (possible) way to reduce drug-related crimes. These crimes and the addictive people produce enormous costs for the general public, because the police has to be behind them, they occupy prison cells and beds in hospitals. They do not really work, and if they do something, than mostly illegal stuff. Besides the health risk (Aids for example) and the dangers of crimes, the costs are also worth to mention. To reduce these costs, the policy about drugs could be changed. Than taking the drug isn't wanted, but not a crime. Only drug-trade is prosecuted. And to dry out the market, the drugs are handed out for free, but only to the real addictive people and only in special centres. This will not allow any profit - or at least much less - from drug trading. If the addictive person gets his daily dose, the related crimes could be greatly reduced. This alone would be a justification. But there is more, since the income from drugs are often used to finance other unwanted activities. (All the third-world guerillas for example live more or less from drugs.) Anyhow: things like this will not happen, because positive effects for you are negative effects for other people, that are not really happy about loosing their income. TH Actually, untrue ... in countries where the drugs are "legal" you find lawyers, doctors, judges, bankers, etc. which die of old age and are addicted to such drugs as opiates ... The real danger is the high cost of drugs and the difficulty obtaining them, that is why people are murdered in holdups, home burglaries, etc. Give 'em the drugs and let them go crash in a flop house ... Pick up any newspaper, pay close attention to the specifics of most killings ... you will find that the majority revolve around the illegality of drugs and someone committing a crime to get the drugs ... Regards, JS Same goes for Tobacco and Alcohol : Most of the Tobacco and Alcohol Addicts live normal lives into their 60s and 70s; and Die of Old Age. -That-is-'Aged-&-Old'-due-to-Tobacco-&-Alcohol- And... many {most?} Lawyers, Doctors, Judges, Bankers, etc are Tobacco a/o Alcohol Addicts. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/9/2011 9:31 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: Anyhow: things like this will not happen, because positive effects for you are negative effects for other people, that are not really happy about loosing their income. TH Actually, untrue ... in countries where the drugs are "legal" you find lawyers, doctors, judges, bankers, etc. which die of old age and are addicted to such drugs as opiates ... The real danger is the high cost of drugs and the difficulty obtaining them, that is why people are murdered in holdups, home burglaries, etc. Give 'em the drugs and let them go crash in a flop house ... Pick up any newspaper, pay close attention to the specifics of most killings ... you will find that the majority revolve around the illegality of drugs and someone committing a crime to get the drugs ... Regards, JS All one needs to do is study up on prohibition and it's resuls. Alcoholims actually went up over time during prohibition Crime increased Graft and corruption increased And people just kept on drinking |
Prohibition (was: Small gun, the serious protection you need...)
On 10/10/2011 9:00 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/9/2011 9:31 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 09.10.2011 04:18, schrieb RHF: Anyhow: things like this will not happen, because positive effects for you are negative effects for other people, that are not really happy about loosing their income. TH Actually, untrue ... in countries where the drugs are "legal" you find lawyers, doctors, judges, bankers, etc. which die of old age and are addicted to such drugs as opiates ... The real danger is the high cost of drugs and the difficulty obtaining them, that is why people are murdered in holdups, home burglaries, etc. Give 'em the drugs and let them go crash in a flop house ... Pick up any newspaper, pay close attention to the specifics of most killings ... you will find that the majority revolve around the illegality of drugs and someone committing a crime to get the drugs ... Regards, JS All one needs to do is study up on prohibition and it's resuls. Alcoholims actually went up over time during prohibition Crime increased Graft and corruption increased And people just kept on drinking Mencken said that Prohibition was absolutely perfect. The moralists got all the laws they wanted -- and the drinkers got all the booze they wanted. Faithfully, Kevin Alfred Strom. -- http://nationalvanguard.org/ http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ |
Prohibition (was: Small gun, the serious protection you need ...)
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:11:08 -0400, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote: Mencken said that Prohibition was absolutely perfect. The moralists got all the laws they wanted -- and the drinkers got all the booze they wanted. And the crime syndicates ran crazy. Not quite as crazy as the drug lords in Mexico are - but the USAmerican market has much more money today to fund them. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
Prohibition (was: Small gun, the serious protection you need...)
The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=314390 The Biggest drug dealers are the CIA, but that is old News. Afghanistan,,, fed govt said they were going to destroy all the poppies over there.HA! CIA is doing more drug trade than ever before! Follow The Money. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote: On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. ... In areas of So. America, Coca Leaf is legal. I think the wife and I were on a train in Bolivia when we had our first cup of coca tea -- delightful stuff! As good or better than coffee, indeed a mix of coca leaf with coffee beans is an ideal pick-me-up! Coca tea should certainly be available here in the USA ... and, like pot, the government should keep their noses out of others business and what plants they consume ... if you are in public and endangering yourself or others, different story ... if you are committing a crime, different story, etc. It was an insane plan to ever attempt to outlaw God given plants. I don't know what insanity ever made it seem different, what thinking made us wish to punish people for using plants, etc. ... but someday we will have to return to sanity and tell the control freaks to mind their own business and quit locking up people for using plants and committing no other crime(s.) For one thing, we simply can't afford it, never could, really ... Regards, JS Some of the Marijuana Growers in the Northern California Sierra Foothills have also been trying to grow Coca Plants on Federal Lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca . Well, I definently don't like the "high" of marijuana, but coca is so much like coffee as a pick me up that I can see real value in it ... indeed, I believe coca-cola used to actually contain cocaine ... It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here, someones insomnia here, etc. The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine show man" selling his "tonics." Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ... Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe. If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking these substances. On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes. This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even worse. So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits against the costs and find a possible solution. A solution would be a cure of addiction. Sounds like a silly proposal, but there are certain therapies, that seem to work and are seldom used: One way stems from Israel and that was to sedate the addictive person during the detoxification. Another way use a specific drug, but I forgot the name. It was kind of hallucinogen plant from Westafrica. The substitution with methadone seems to create more problems than it solves, what leave the controlled hand out of the real drug. something else: this thread has still the title ' Small gun, the serious protection you need ...' and is posted to 'rec.sport.golf' ;-) Greetings TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/10/2011 1:12 AM, RHF wrote:
... I simply 'view' Drug Addiction to a long slow process leading to Death : Giving Drug Addicts; All the Free Drugs that They Want; and as Much as They Can Handle to the Conclusion of that Inevitable Death is just hurrying the process along : For the Betterment of Society. * Cut a Lifetime {~33 Years} of Drug Addiction, Crime and Victimization Down to Less than a Decade. -let-the-drug-addicts-eradicate-themselves- Balance Free Drugs -with- No Medical Treatment for Drug ODs and Drug Related Illnesses -same-goes-for- Tobacco and Lung Cancer -and- Alcohol and Liver Disease =They=Are=All=Acts=of=Suicide= . Well, ... I simply think of it as empowering people, allowing them free access to their God given rights and resources ... God gave them free will, I don't need to override his decision. I would always support help for "fallen people", people who have made mistakes ... get them away from their addiction and back into self sufficiency ... I mean, I'd do no less for an animal who got itself in "a bad situation", to do any less for a human would declare myself subhuman, IMHO ... Like I say, I have a strong respect for the creator given rights and resources referenced by the forefathers ... it would simply be un-American to not support them with my very life ... And, I think the 10 commandments have it all covered nicely, if they aren't breaking them, they are not offending me or society ... and frankly, there are still areas there where I have no business sticking my nose into -- I mean, if they are disrespecting their parents, they and their parents will have to settle that out ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/10/2011 1:19 AM, RHF wrote:
... Same goes for Tobacco and Alcohol : Most of the Tobacco and Alcohol Addicts live normal lives into their 60s and 70s; and Die of Old Age. -That-is-'Aged-&-Old'-due-to-Tobacco-&-Alcohol- And... many {most?} Lawyers, Doctors, Judges, Bankers, etc are Tobacco a/o Alcohol Addicts. . . Seems like a proper application of logic and reason to me ... I would like to think my use of alcohol and tobacco cause, and have caused, no one any problems which have not been resolved, repaired and proper restitution made ... however, my mother might have some comments on my younger days of drinking :-( Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/10/2011 6:00 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
... All one needs to do is study up on prohibition and it's resuls. Alcoholims actually went up over time during prohibition Crime increased Graft and corruption increased And people just kept on drinking Yep, pretty much my thinking and observations. I think we would have a lot more empty prisons, if only back in the early 1900's we had made Coca-Cola put a warning on their bottles, rather than start locking up the people for drinking it -- passing expensive and punitive laws, etc! Regards, JS |
Prohibition
On 10/10/2011 6:11 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
... Mencken said that Prohibition was absolutely perfect. The moralists got all the laws they wanted -- and the drinkers got all the booze they wanted. Faithfully, Kevin Alfred Strom. Indeed, perfect point made perfectly ... Regards, JS |
Prohibition (was: Small gun, the serious protection you need...)
On 10/10/2011 7:45 AM, J R wrote:
The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=314390 The Biggest drug dealers are the CIA, but that is old News. Afghanistan,,, fed govt said they were going to destroy all the poppies over there.HA! CIA is doing more drug trade than ever before! Follow The Money. cuhulin I am one who thinks your point(s) is/are absolutely correct. The USA government is in the drug trade here and imprisons all their competition .... surely gives a most severe definition to "monopoly!" I can't believe people actually want to waste their tax dollars on support the crooks! If fact, I think the government lies and most don't want to! Regards, JS |
Prohibition (was: Small gun, the serious protection you need ...)
On Oct 10, 11:54*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/10/2011 7:45 AM, J R wrote: The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=314390 The Biggest drug dealers are the CIA, but that is old News. Afghanistan,,, fed govt said they were going to destroy all the poppies over there.HA! CIA is doing more drug trade than ever before! Follow The Money. cuhulin I am one who thinks your point(s) is/are absolutely correct. *The USA government is in the drug trade here and imprisons all their competition ... surely gives a most severe definition to "monopoly!" I can't believe people actually want to waste their tax dollars on support the crooks! *If fact, I think the government lies and most don't want to! Regards, JS The 'Delano' Family -wrt- "FDR" was in the China Trade {Opium} http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n196/a03.html nothing changes ~ RHF |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/10/2011 10:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith: On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote: On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... Alcohol is a drug in a way and cigarettes make quite addictive, but that was not, what I meant with illegal drugs. I mean stuff like crack or heroine. These create a certain kind of physical addiction, that is very hard to cure and forces the addictive person to use these substances, unless they want to get severe pain and health problems. Like any substance, the price depends. It is a question of the way, these substances are produced and not of the stuff itself. In Afghanistan a great deal of the raw material is produced. This could be bought there for relatively moderate prices. The processing to a drug is usual chemical work, that any good pharmaceutical plant could do. ... In areas of So. America, Coca Leaf is legal. I think the wife and I were on a train in Bolivia when we had our first cup of coca tea -- delightful stuff! As good or better than coffee, indeed a mix of coca leaf with coffee beans is an ideal pick-me-up! Coca tea should certainly be available here in the USA ... and, like pot, the government should keep their noses out of others business and what plants they consume ... if you are in public and endangering yourself or others, different story ... if you are committing a crime, different story, etc. It was an insane plan to ever attempt to outlaw God given plants. I don't know what insanity ever made it seem different, what thinking made us wish to punish people for using plants, etc. ... but someday we will have to return to sanity and tell the control freaks to mind their own business and quit locking up people for using plants and committing no other crime(s.) For one thing, we simply can't afford it, never could, really ... Regards, JS Some of the Marijuana Growers in the Northern California Sierra Foothills have also been trying to grow Coca Plants on Federal Lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca . Well, I definently don't like the "high" of marijuana, but coca is so much like coffee as a pick me up that I can see real value in it ... indeed, I believe coca-cola used to actually contain cocaine ... It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here, someones insomnia here, etc. The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine show man" selling his "tonics." Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ... Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe. If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking these substances. On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes. This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even worse. So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits against the costs and find a possible solution. A solution would be a cure of addiction. Sounds like a silly proposal, but there are certain therapies, that seem to work and are seldom used: One way stems from Israel and that was to sedate the addictive person during the detoxification. Another way use a specific drug, but I forgot the name. It was kind of hallucinogen plant from Westafrica. The substitution with methadone seems to create more problems than it solves, what leave the controlled hand out of the real drug. something else: this thread has still the title ' Small gun, the serious protection you need ...' and is posted to 'rec.sport.golf' ;-) Greetings TH In the end, all I see left on the table, once the BS is wiped up, is control freaks and crooks ... Or, simply, those who do not get a reward from controlling others, or are making no profit from drugs being illegal, simply have no interest in consuming billion or even trillions of tax payer dollars to imprison, otherwise, law abiding citizens ... Unless some other crime is committed, the simple act of consuming a drug (or narcotic, specifically) is simply a victimless crime ... and certainly NOT WORTH PAYING $40,000+ USD to punish someone for (lock them in a prison) ... besides, it only ends up, really, punishing the tax payers and society at large ... but, if you are not making any money off of the drugs themselves, exploiting the American tax payer for your paycheck is yet another option (paid public servant, policing authority, court employee, etc.) All of this punishment, criminalization and illegality of drugs does is "put fleas on the tax payers back", to suck 'em dry ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
|
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 10, 5:13*pm, (J R) wrote:
- Germany Unity Day - http://www.rense.com - cuhulin Deutsches Eck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Eck |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 10.10.2011 22:37, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/10/2011 10:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith: On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote: On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: ... It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here, someones insomnia here, etc. The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine show man" selling his "tonics." Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ... Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe. If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking these substances. On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes. This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even worse. So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits against the costs and find a possible solution. ... In the end, all I see left on the table, once the BS is wiped up, is control freaks and crooks ... Or, simply, those who do not get a reward from controlling others, or are making no profit from drugs being illegal, simply have no interest in consuming billion or even trillions of tax payer dollars to imprison, otherwise, law abiding citizens ... Unless some other crime is committed, the simple act of consuming a drug (or narcotic, specifically) is simply a victimless crime ... and certainly NOT WORTH PAYING $40,000+ USD to punish someone for (lock them in a prison) ... besides, it only ends up, really, punishing the tax payers and society at large ... but, if you are not making any money off of the drugs themselves, exploiting the American tax payer for your paycheck is yet another option (paid public servant, policing authority, court employee, etc.) All of this punishment, criminalization and illegality of drugs does is "put fleas on the tax payers back", to suck 'em dry ... You still don't see the entire scale of the problem. The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the other negative side effects. E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at the criminal. Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what has a value, too. Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your possibilities are reduced. The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also worth to mention. Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues are made through means, that are against the society in general. That income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities. E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials, policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they don't function like intended. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 10.10.2011 22:37, schrieb John Smith: On 10/10/2011 10:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith: On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote: On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: .. It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here, someones insomnia here, etc. The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine show man" selling his "tonics." Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ... Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe. If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking these substances. On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes. This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even worse. So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits against the costs and find a possible solution. .. In the end, all I see left on the table, once the BS is wiped up, is control freaks and crooks ... Or, simply, those who do not get a reward from controlling others, or are making no profit from drugs being illegal, simply have no interest in consuming billion or even trillions of tax payer dollars to imprison, otherwise, law abiding citizens ... Unless some other crime is committed, the simple act of consuming a drug (or narcotic, specifically) is simply a victimless crime ... and certainly NOT WORTH PAYING $40,000+ USD to punish someone for (lock them in a prison) ... besides, it only ends up, really, punishing the tax payers and society at large ... but, if you are not making any money off of the drugs themselves, exploiting the American tax payer for your paycheck is yet another option (paid public servant, policing authority, court employee, etc.) All of this punishment, criminalization and illegality of drugs does is "put fleas on the tax payers back", to suck 'em dry ... You still don't see the entire scale of the problem. The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the other negative side effects. And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any of the positives E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at the criminal. 1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what wealth they have to pay for drugs. 2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with scoring and enjoying the high. 3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance 4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to make sure he's not a threat any more 5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have my car. 6) The druggie is dead. 7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good shoot. Problem solved Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what has a value, too. That's only true in your worst-case scenario IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs are 1) hauling off the body to the morgue 2) Autopsy 3) police filing a good shoot report 4) buying ammo to replace what was used. Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your possibilities are reduced. And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST, ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also worth to mention. Change of subject noted Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues are made through means, that are against the society in general. That income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities. E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials, policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they don't function like intended. Don't disagree with you there Prohibitions of any kind tend to 1) fail badly 2) result in unintended and usually negative side-effects. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/11/2011 9:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.10.2011 22:37, schrieb John Smith: On 10/10/2011 10:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 10.10.2011 07:29, schrieb John Smith: On 10/8/2011 7:26 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 8, 5:39 pm, John wrote: On 10/8/2011 5:13 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: .. It wasn't until this century began that drugs were illegal ... I can remember that my grandmother still had supplies of opium and cocaine and guarded them religiously ... doling them out for a toothache here, someones insomnia here, etc. The original argument, why to make drugs illegal, was basically that people were duped into becoming addicted and supporting the "medicine show man" selling his "tonics." Well, times have a changed, everyone knows about drugs ... we can decriminalize them now ... the only people who will become addicted are those who wish to ... no one is going to be duped into it ... Any substance is somehow a drug. So let's talk about narcotics - maybe. If you consider all the suffering related to these drugs: mental and health problems, loosing jobs, families and friends, a LOT of money and possibly life. So warnings should be there. But it's not really a question of the law and criminal investigation, if someone is taking these substances. On the other hand, this is not wanted neither, because consume has negative side effects. But making this stuff illegal and consume a crime makes matters much worse, since the addiction cannot be properly treated, the stuff is mixed with any kind of toxins and the price for the dose is getting very high, what inevitable leads to related crimes. This is all a great big ugly mess. Most countries do not really solve these problems, but have half-baked programs, that can make matters even worse. So people should start to think it over and calculate the benefits against the costs and find a possible solution. .. In the end, all I see left on the table, once the BS is wiped up, is control freaks and crooks ... Or, simply, those who do not get a reward from controlling others, or are making no profit from drugs being illegal, simply have no interest in consuming billion or even trillions of tax payer dollars to imprison, otherwise, law abiding citizens ... Unless some other crime is committed, the simple act of consuming a drug (or narcotic, specifically) is simply a victimless crime ... and certainly NOT WORTH PAYING $40,000+ USD to punish someone for (lock them in a prison) ... besides, it only ends up, really, punishing the tax payers and society at large ... but, if you are not making any money off of the drugs themselves, exploiting the American tax payer for your paycheck is yet another option (paid public servant, policing authority, court employee, etc.) All of this punishment, criminalization and illegality of drugs does is "put fleas on the tax payers back", to suck 'em dry ... You still don't see the entire scale of the problem. The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the other negative side effects. E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at the criminal. Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what has a value, too. Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your possibilities are reduced. The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also worth to mention. Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues are made through means, that are against the society in general. That income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities. E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials, policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they don't function like intended. TH Yes, we had a rash of "bad cops" which seemed to feed on the illegal drug trade ... One thing I am positive of, remove the financial rewards surrounding drugs and the "drug problem" would take on a whole new face. It would not be "glamorous", you would not see a punk of gang punks wearing gold chains and presenting dangers, etc. I am amazed that "the powers which be" can keep on selling failed actions, plans and results while the very thing they are selling is causing massive amounts of crime and death ... obviously, fear mongering is economically a very lucrative business. I have seen figures which claim ~80%+ of the prison populations are people whose only crime is sales, possession, growing, creating, etc. drugs ... it staggers my mind to even guess how much money could be had by simply closing down 80% of the prisons, and sending 80% of the authorities, court offices, cops, prison guards, etc. home and saving their benefits, medical and perks ... Certainly it would not be that expensive to start burying the drug addicts which would die. And, it would only be a one time cost! People who want to pay for this should be allowed to lock up as many as they can afford ... I simply don't want to pay for it anymore ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Afghan Opium Production Up 61% Over Last Year.
http://www.rense.com Of couse that is with the blessing of the CIA, the World's Biggest Drug Dealers, World's Biggest Dope Pushers. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 11, 10:21*pm, (J R) wrote:
Afghan Opium Production Up 61% Over Last Year.http://www.rense.com Of couse that is with the blessing of the CIA, the World's Biggest Drug Dealers, World's Biggest Dope Pushers. cuhulin CIA =the= Cocaine Importing Agency |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:21:03 -0500, J R wrote:
Afghan Opium Production Up 61% Over Last Year. http://www.rense.com Of couse that is with the blessing of the CIA, the World's Biggest Drug Dealers, World's Biggest Dope Pushers. cuhulin Only when Herbert Herbert Bush was at the CIA. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/11/2011 10:21 PM, J R wrote:
Afghan Opium Production Up 61% Over Last Year. http://www.rense.com Of couse that is with the blessing of the CIA, the World's Biggest Drug Dealers, World's Biggest Dope Pushers. cuhulin Absolutely! They have just cut out the middle man, now take it right from field to market ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
That Photo on the World Wide Web (Fat Al Gore said he invented the
Internet) of G.W.Bush and Jeb Bush standing by that Airplane load of Drugs, in Florida.Was that Barry Seal's Airplane? cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/12/2011 7:21 AM, J R wrote:
That Photo on the World Wide Web (Fat Al Gore said he invented the Internet) of G.W.Bush and Jeb Bush standing by that Airplane load of Drugs, in Florida.Was that Barry Seal's Airplane? cuhulin I think gore did help move the net from govt./military/industrial/education institutions into the public sector -- just to give credit where credit is due ... obviously, if he had realized what he was giving to the slaves, for their rebellion and revolution, he would never have done it ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
... You still don't see the entire scale of the problem. The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the other negative side effects. And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any of the positives E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at the criminal. 1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what wealth they have to pay for drugs. 2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with scoring and enjoying the high. 3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance 4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to make sure he's not a threat any more 5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have my car. 6) The druggie is dead. 7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good shoot. Problem solved It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little realistic. BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but heard of such crimes. The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and possession ('Besitz'). The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored in a safe place. Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't know the reason for that.) Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what has a value, too. That's only true in your worst-case scenario IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs are 1) hauling off the body to the morgue 2) Autopsy 3) police filing a good shoot report 4) buying ammo to replace what was used. The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of currency. For example the use of a machine belongs to costs, even if the machine is already paid. Imagine all the money, the American taxpayer pay. Pile that up in coins. That is a HUGE pile. Thats what you have (the American people). Than you take HUGE caterpillars to grab the money for the military, the various agencies, the government, schools, wellfare, streets and so forth. What is left isn't a mountain, but still a hill. This is for the nicer things. If you use money from this pile, than the nicer things are reduced, because that money is spent for something else. The cost is now not the money spent, but the reduction of things you like. E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure and beauty, but a new - say - stadium would. Than the cost of that prison is (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium. Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your possibilities are reduced. And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST, ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN Actually I think, what they fear most is the pain from having no drugs. Next is the police and than - maybe - citizens. Certain drugs reduce the ability to think rational to some extend, what would make such people act like psychos. There is no way to deal with such persons in a rational way. You would need to sedate them -maybe- and take them to a hospital. Another subject are homeless people. These would possibly fall into your category, too, even if this is quite unfair. Homeless people are a threat to the public health, because a person needs a shelter and occasional possibility to have a shower (or alike). A homeless person is not a criminal, but could spread diseases, because the person has to live outside. The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also worth to mention. Change of subject noted Same with such thing as 'liberties'. Liberties certainly belong to the nicer things, you like to have. If you give up certain rights to achieve a certain effect, than this right, you don't possess any more, belongs to the costs. If you had to give up the right to - say - ride a horse, than loosing this right reduces your possibilities. You can say: I never rides horses, but some people do. So, the 'pain' of others counts, too. Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues are made through means, that are against the society in general. That income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities. E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials, policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they don't function like intended. Don't disagree with you there Prohibitions of any kind tend to 1) fail badly 2) result in unintended and usually negative side-effects. Agree with you here, too. Greetings Thomas |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. You still don't see the entire scale of the problem. The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the other negative side effects. And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any of the positives E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at the criminal. 1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what wealth they have to pay for drugs. 2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with scoring and enjoying the high. 3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance 4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to make sure he's not a threat any more 5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have my car. 6) The druggie is dead. 7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good shoot. Problem solved It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little realistic. Sure With VERY HEAVY emphasis on "least".. :-) BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but heard of such crimes. I'm sure that it's happened a few times. It's basically someone coming up to you sitting in your car and evicting you forcibly from it to steal your car. The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and possession ('Besitz'). The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored in a safe place. And you presume that we don't understand the differnce ? If you borrow my car, you have possession of it, while I still remain the owner In the same way, if you carjack me, you have possession, while I still have ownership. This is not a concept unique to Germany, bub.. Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't know the reason for that.) Mostly cultural In the US most of the street crime is attributed to young black and hispanic males Although they represent a very small percentage of the population, they have a inordinately high crime rate in just about all the categories. For examples they are 7 times more likely to be murdered and 5 times more likely to commit murder than any other group in US society. If you take the statistical anomaly that they create in US crime statistics, the US would rank below Canada overall. Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what has a value, too. That's only true in your worst-case scenario IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs are 1) hauling off the body to the morgue 2) Autopsy 3) police filing a good shoot report 4) buying ammo to replace what was used. The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of currency. Stop being a pontificating dweeb Most intelligent people know the multiple meanings of the word cost. redundant pontification snipped E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure and beauty, but a new - say - stadium would. That would depend on the design of both the prison and the stadium And the social benefit of locking up criminals far outweighs the social benefit of a stadium that is empty most of the time. Than the cost of that prison is (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium. After all the bull**** about the various meanings of "cost", you forget to consider the various meanings of "benefits" Smarten up, bub.. Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your possibilities are reduced. And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST, ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN Actually I think, what they fear most is the pain from having no drugs. Next is the police and than - maybe - citizens. BZZT Wrong again Research proves you wrong Maybe YOU need to do a bit more research before you continue demonstrating that you confuse presumption with knowledge... snip more silly pontification The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also worth to mention. Change of subject noted Same with such thing as 'liberties'. Liberties certainly belong to the nicer things, you like to have. And yet, most people are completely unaware of how easily and often they are trampled by those in power And many times with the excuse that it's for your own good.. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
I think Smith & Wesson makes some 50 Calibre Shootin Irons/Pistols.
Get a Bigger Badda Boom Boom! cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 12, 11:43*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. You still don't see the entire scale of the problem. The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the other negative side effects. And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any of the positives E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at the criminal. 1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what wealth they have to pay for drugs. 2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with scoring and enjoying the high. 3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance 4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to make sure he's not a threat any more 5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have my car. 6) The druggie is dead. 7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good shoot. Problem solved It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little realistic. BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but heard of such crimes. The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and possession ('Besitz'). The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored in a safe place. Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't know the reason for that.) Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what has a value, too. That's only true in your worst-case scenario IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs are 1) hauling off the body to the morgue 2) Autopsy 3) police filing a good shoot report 4) buying ammo to replace what was used. The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of currency. For example the use of a machine belongs to costs, even if the machine is already paid. Imagine all the money, the American taxpayer pay. Pile that up in coins. That is a HUGE pile. Thats what you have (the American people). Than you take HUGE caterpillars to grab the money for the military, the various agencies, the government, schools, wellfare, streets and so forth.. What is left isn't a mountain, but still a hill. This is for the nicer things. If you use money from this pile, than the nicer things are reduced, because that money is spent for something else. The cost is now not the money spent, but the reduction of things you like.. - E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure - and beauty, but a new - say - stadium would. - - Than the cost of that prison is - (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium. The Prison provides Free Long-Term {Safe} Housing for Criminals 24/7/365 for Years and even Decades. And Thus is an Effective Use of the Public's Money/Resources. * Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle of Self-Abuse of Drugs and Alcohol * Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle of Crime and Victimizing 'other' Members** of Society ** Law-Abiding Good Citizens * Creating a Safer {Crime Free} Society * Saving the Lives of Non-Criminals -note- In Prisons Criminals Only Victimize 'other' Criminals; and not the Good Citizens of Society Stadiums are NOT an Effective Use of the Public's Money; often they are under-utilized and waste of needed Resources. Stadiums make Team Owners Rich and make Players Rich : While Denying Safe Free Public Housing to the Poor and Food for Poor Starving Children. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Everything is just peachy keen in Germany, eh? NYET!
Watchin one of the local yokel back water hick tee vee stations here enema Jacksonnnnnnn, Missy Sippy, WLBT 3 tee vee noos at 4:00 PM. http://www.WLBT.com http://www.WJTV.com http://www.WAPT.com Firebomb Attacks in Berlin, (I didn't say Berlin,New Hampshire U.S.A.either) There have been other Firebomb Attacks in Berlin,Germany since last Monday, protesting Germany's role in Afghanistan.According to local yokel backwater hick Missy Sippy tee vee noos. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. You still don't see the entire scale of the problem. The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all the other negative side effects. And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any of the positives E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that shoots at the criminal. 1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what wealth they have to pay for drugs. 2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with scoring and enjoying the high. 3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance 4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to make sure he's not a threat any more 5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have my car. 6) The druggie is dead. 7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good shoot. Problem solved It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little realistic. BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but heard of such crimes. The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and possession ('Besitz'). The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored in a safe place. Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't know the reason for that.) Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of life, what has a value, too. That's only true in your worst-case scenario IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs are 1) hauling off the body to the morgue 2) Autopsy 3) police filing a good shoot report 4) buying ammo to replace what was used. The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of currency. For example the use of a machine belongs to costs, even if the machine is already paid. Imagine all the money, the American taxpayer pay. Pile that up in coins. That is a HUGE pile. Thats what you have (the American people). Than you take HUGE caterpillars to grab the money for the military, the various agencies, the government, schools, wellfare, streets and so forth. What is left isn't a mountain, but still a hill. This is for the nicer things. If you use money from this pile, than the nicer things are reduced, because that money is spent for something else. The cost is now not the money spent, but the reduction of things you like. - E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure - and beauty, but a new - say - stadium would. - - Than the cost of that prison is - (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium. The Prison provides Free Long-Term {Safe} Housing for Criminals 24/7/365 for Years and even Decades. And Thus is an Effective Use of the Public's Money/Resources. * Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle of Self-Abuse of Drugs and Alcohol * Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle of Crime and Victimizing 'other' Members** of Society ** Law-Abiding Good Citizens * Creating a Safer {Crime Free} Society * Saving the Lives of Non-Criminals -note- In Prisons Criminals Only Victimize 'other' Criminals; and not the Good Citizens of Society Stadiums are NOT an Effective Use of the Public's Money; often they are under-utilized and waste of needed Resources. Stadiums make Team Owners Rich and make Players Rich : While Denying Safe Free Public Housing to the Poor and Food for Poor Starving Children. . Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your possibilities are reduced. And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST, ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN Actually I think, what they fear most is the pain from having no drugs. Next is the police and than - maybe - citizens. Certain drugs reduce the ability to think rational to some extend, what would make such people act like psychos. There is no way to deal with such persons in a rational way. You would need to sedate them -maybe- and take them to a hospital. - Another subject are homeless people. - These would possibly fall into your - category, too, even if this is quite unfair. - - Homeless people are a threat to the - public health, because a person needs - a shelter and occasional possibility - to have a shower (or alike). - A homeless person is not a criminal, -oops- Many are using drugs and alcohol; and Commit Criminal Acts such as : Stealing, Theft, Robbery, Violence, Injury and Killing. . - but could spread diseases, because - the person has to live outside. NAH - Usually are Diseased due to the Addicted Use of Drugs and Alcohol; along with Mental Illness. . The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also worth to mention. Change of subject noted Same with such thing as 'liberties'. Liberties certainly belong to the nicer things, you like to have. If you give up certain rights to achieve a certain effect, than this right, you don't possess any more, belongs to the costs. If you had to give up the right to - say - ride a horse, than loosing this right reduces your possibilities. You can say: I never rides horses, but some people do. So, the 'pain' of others counts, too. Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues are made through means, that are against the society in general. That income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities. E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials, policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they don't function like intended. Don't disagree with you there Prohibitions of any kind tend to 1) fail badly 2) result in unintended and usually negative side-effects. Agree with you here, too. Greetings Thomas Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM SUCKERS!" This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits, royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ... Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ... Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM SUCKERS!" This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits, royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ... Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ... Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own country. ('paperclip'). But beware, since now YOU have them. I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the states. For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one developed the Saturn V engines.) Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 13, 11:48*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM SUCKERS!" This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits, royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ... Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ... Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own country. ('paperclip'). But beware, since now YOU have them. I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the states. For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one developed the Saturn V engines.) Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM SUCKERS!" This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits, royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ... Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ... Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own country. ('paperclip'). But beware, since now YOU have them. I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the states. For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one developed the Saturn V engines.) Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... I know they were German I have no knowledge of them being Nazis as well Why don't you support your claim with some evidence. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Germany likes to bragg about the quality of German Ore/steel.But, the
highest quality of Iron Ore was from the French Briery (spelling?) Iron Ore in France.World War Two era. When I was in boot camp at Fort Gordon,Georgia in 1962, there was a guy whos last name was Spangler.He was always bragging about German steel. Fort Bragg is Bragging every day. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- ... Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. So: if the moon landing was faked, where then did the money go? TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo. to name a few: If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and certainly very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can, with something glued upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses half of the 'A'. There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not. The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander. But we see something different, because there seem to be something reflected, where darkness should be. The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but the difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the surface should have higher contrast). Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the most durable joint. This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?). Greetings TH (Actually I regard it as kind of sport, to find 'easter-eggs', what are such anomalies.) |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...ation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Scout" wrote in
: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB. So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your socks off. "The International Space Station photographed following separation from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001." http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/ Damn, is that the EARTH in the background? "Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. " http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html Damn, there it is again. "International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS" http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme. "The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the shuttle Discovery in June" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/ So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space flight? Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in. -- Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman) Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic..... |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger: Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF: On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote: Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa: -- .. Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got ripped off... TH TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned} Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program one does wonder . . . ~ RHF Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth). Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one. About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the pictures taken. My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly sophisticated. Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one) Look at this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon. Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the landing module 'Eagle'. But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the lander lands. Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back. There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo. to name a few: If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and certainly very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can, Because it basically was a tin can. Weight is everything in space flight (particularly back then) and so you kept everything at the minimum possible weight. Thus the "tin can" appearance. with something glued upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses half of the 'A'. Because it probably was. If you notice there are a row of little dimples or bumps down the length of the module, and the decal is located over this row of dimples/bumps. If you look at the high res scan of it you can see this most clearly. http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11963HR.jpg Now, on launch the craft is subjected to rather significant air flow and turbulence. It seems quite probable that when the air pressure during launch pressed against the decal it stretched it into those dimples/bumps and the lettering (which was probably printed on) either flaked off, stretched out of shape or otherwise became lost/distorted. There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not. They aren't the same size. The center and I believe the outer corners were oversized. The high res and uncropped photo link above. The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander. Yep, so? But we see something different, because there seem to be something reflected, where darkness should be. You did note that the module is in a NOSE DOWN attitude? That's going to impact what is being reflected. The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but the difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the surface should have higher contrast). That would depend on a number of items. Film, shutter speed, aperture, focal length, Heck it might even, gasp, be a different camera. I mean you are aware that they used a different camera on the surface than they did for the one they used for the in orbit shots? Indeed, consider for a second your own thoughts. Now would you get greater contrast with a moderately lit object against a brightly lit background. Or in an environment in which everything is subject to high illumination? Keeping in mind you're going to have to change shutter speed and/or aperture in order to keep from over exposing the film. Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the most durable joint. Actually a riveted joint is quite durable. Look at all the bridges a 100+ years old that were riveted. Further a rivet doesn't have the stress risers you find on a screw, and it has a larger effective cross sectional area. That means more strength in a lighter weight fastener. Remembering that every ounce matters. This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?). If you mean the piece directly above the attitude jet. Yes, it does seem discolored. Bet you would be discolored too if subjected to the high temperature bursts of some rather nasty chemicals used in those thrusters. I will simply note you apparently haven't even bothered to do an in-depth analysis of something you claim was faked. As such your conclusions seem based on ignorance more than because anything is wrong with the photos. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com