What's good for the gooseses....

[cordex]

I dispute this statement.  I do not believe you are willing at all.  I believe you will offer corrupt and disingenuous arguments (as you did above) to support your point.
But taking it at face value, what would persuade you that your position is incorrect?

*sigh*

It's okay, Rabbi.  Don't worry about it.  You're not even reading my posts so why bother responding?  Had you actually read my post (or even the very sentence you misquoted), you might have read the whole of the following sentence: "I'm willing to be proven wrong, but my guess is that you have no standards by which you judge drugs."

It thought that would be easy to understand, but I'll rephrase it.
I've asked you repeatedly what the standards are by which you objectively judge drugs and you've repeatedly ducked the question, usually by wailing about crack and meth.  So, one last time.

What - if you have any - are the standards that you apply to all drugs (alcohol, MDMA, tobacco, PCP, caffeine, Cocaine, nutmeg, marijuana, bananas and crack) to determine what you believe should be openly available, what should be legal but slightly or strictly controlled and what you believe should be totally illegal?

I know that at best you'll skim this and be unlikely to address anything I actually say (as evidenced by your continual use of non-sequiturs, strawman arguments and other logical fallacies) but I'm not advocating total deregulation or total regulation.  I think I'll pull a fistful and quote myself here:

If recreational drug use is a bad thing, then drinking alcohol is a bad thing.
If drinking alcohol is not a bad thing, then recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing.
If recreational drug use is not in and of itself a bad thing, then I'd say that people who promote usage or prohibition of a given drug or group of drugs should have objective standards for evaluating them.  Booze vs. Pot is where those objective standards usually break down.

Did you catch that?  I'm just saying that whether you think pot should be legal or illegal, you should actually have standards for judging it.  I don't think you do.  You're welcome to prove me wrong on that, however.

You're arguing for your booze using the same rediculous arguments that "medical marijuana" supporters use, and managing to look just as silly.

In essence, though, you're right in this most recent post.  You probably can't persuade me that my position is incorrect.  Of course, you haven't bothered to address or even consider my position yet, so that makes it even more unlikely.  I wouldn't have thought desiring to have reasonable standards would be something you'd be so interested in opposing, but maybe it's just that bad of an idea.  Or more likely, you're just blindly jerking your knee without bothering to pay attention.

[Perd Hapley]

I think I'll pull a fistful and quote myself here...

Woah, son, don't try that at home.  When you're as good as I am, you quote yourself.  After all, if you said it right the first time...

[BrokenPaw]

After all, if you said it right the first time...

...it probably wouldn't have needed said again.  

Oh.  Wait.  Was that my out-loud voice?  Dang.  Internal monologue.  Internal.  Must work on that.

-BP

[Perd Hapley]

After all, if you said it right the first time...

...it probably wouldn't have needed said again.  

IF you all hung on my every word, as you certainly ought to do.  I mean, sheesh, where else do you get access to a higher level of cogitation than consulting me?  I ought to charge for my pearls of wisdom.  Nonetheless, some do not listen the first time.


I'll have to quote this the next time I repeat myself.  

[The Rabbi]

In essence, though, you're right in this most recent post.  You probably can't persuade me that my position is incorrect.  Of course, you haven't bothered to address or even consider my position yet, so that makes it even more unlikely.  I wouldn't have thought desiring to have reasonable standards would be something you'd be so interested in opposing, but maybe it's just that bad of an idea.  Or more likely, you're just blindly jerking your knee without bothering to pay attention.

That's really the only thing that counts.  You are not willing to be persuaded, as you admit.  So let's call this one a stalemate and wait for the next chowderhead to raise the same issue so we can rehearse all the same arguments.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm a chowderhead?  Well, I do like a good clam chowder, as long as it's not the Manhattan variety.

[BrokenPaw]

You are not willing to be persuaded, as you admit.

He didn't say that he's not willing to be persuaded.  He said that you couldn't persuade him.  My guess is that there was an implication that the arguments you're using are not...well...persuasive.  And I'd have to agree.

Also, you dismiss his arguments as "disingenuous" without addressing how that is the case.  In past discussions we've had, Rabbi, I've noticed that once you find you cannot refute what the other person is saying, you seem to fall back upon out-of-hand dismissal or outright silence.  

If cordex's arguments are truly disingenuous, as you assert, you'll be able to back that assertion up without a whole lot of effort.  Or if you can't, then you could admit you're arguing from an unsupported premise.  Either one's fine.

-BP

[Gewehr98]

Ethanol is indeed addicting.

I just put 15 gallons' worth in my truck this morning, as a matter of fact.



I'm biased, I lost an older brother to a drunk driver who hopped the curb and splattered him all over the sidewalk.  

I've also got two pothead stepsons who live in my basement, unemployed, and have resorted to calling me "Piggie" since I started my post-retirement job as a deputy sheriff.  Nice.

Regardless, prohibition was a failed experiment in regulating personal liberties, and would to this day still not work.  However, were recreational drugs like alcohol, pot, cocaine, nicotine, crack, meth, and so forth just plain disappear the world would not come to a screeching halt, nor would I be bothered one bit by the absence.  Of course, some people would never get laid, but the world population is already booming, big deal.

However, there would be much weeping and gnashing of teeth from those who consider those substances absolutely essential for their existence and altered states of mind.  The ACLU would have a field day, and rightfully so, regardless of moral and ethical implications.

So, there will never be a win-win situation.  The best we can hope for is that those who "need" those mind-altering substances will Darwin themselves posthaste and cause no collateral damage, preferably with a minimum of cleanup and imposition to society at large.  In other words, "Screw 'em".

[cordex]

That's really the only thing that counts.  You are not willing to be persuaded, as you admit.

*laugh*

Rabbi, again you didn't bother to read my post, did you?  You don't even bother to read what you quote.  

You have repeatedly stated things as fact which are obviously and demonstrably false ("alcohol is digested as food", "alcohol is not a drug", etc) and then you accuse others of having corrupt arguments.  Rabbi, from reading your posts in other threads you seem for the most part to be a very intelligent, informed and stable guy.  Why is it that when discussing a few issues to include drugs other than booze, you completely turn off your brain?

Just for grins, let me try one last time.

My position is that if one wishes to allow or disallow use of a given substance, one should have universally applied standards to back up that assertion.

That's what I've been arguing.  Frankly, I think it's a pretty sound idea, and that is what I'm not willing to lightly discard.  Can you explain why you're so upset that people should have reasonable standards (whatever those standards might be) to the drugs they seek to outlaw or allow?

[Perd Hapley]

Please forgive me for starting this stupid thread.

[cordex]

Please forgive me for starting this stupid thread.

No.

[wingnutx]

Even when smoked, marijuana is consumed typically with foods.

I'm suprised that the snack-foods industry isn't pushing for legalization.

I once knew a woman who made pesto sauce out of marijuana.

[Sindawe]

I've also got two pothead stepsons who live in my basement, unemployed, and have resorted to calling me "Piggie" since I started my post-retirement job as a deputy sheriff.  Nice.

Apologies in advance for thread-drift/sidebar.

Gewehr98: So you've officially stated the job?  I'm curious as to how you've reconciled your charge to enforce the law as a deputy Sheriff and the fact that you have two adult step children in the house who are violating the law with the choice of external chemical joy?  Were I in you're position, I think I'd either have to resign the job(slim chance) or give the slackers the boot(more likely).  But then, I tend to be a stickler for such things.

Well, I do like a good clam chowder, as long as it's not the Manhattan variety.

Manhatten style clam chowder is an offense against all that is proper and good in the Universe.

[wingnutx]

Thankfully my wife was as eager to give my uber-slacker stepdaughter the boot as I was.

[Perd Hapley]

Manhatten style clam chowder is an offense against all that is proper and good in the Universe.

No surprise.  So is Manhattan.

Please drift this thread.  Anything's better than the spat it has turned in to.

[The Rabbi]

Just for grins, let me try one last time.

My position is that if one wishes to allow or disallow use of a given substance, one should have universally applied standards to back up that assertion.

That's what I've been arguing.  Frankly, I think it's a pretty sound idea, and that is what I'm not willing to lightly discard.  Can you explain why you're so upset that people should have reasonable standards (whatever those standards might be) to the drugs they seek to outlaw or allow?

OK.  My standard is that what is illegal now ought to remain so with severe penalties.  What is legal now ought to remain so.  Not hard to understand.

Your arguments seem to be: people get ****** up on drugs and they get ****** up on booze so there shouldn't be any distinction legally.  My position is that while people may get ****** up on booze, that isnt the primary purpose or the largest use of alcohol.  Thus there is a big distinction.  And if you assert that alcohol causes problems when over-consumed I reply that your solution is just to make that worse.


POST EDITED BY MODERATOR TO REMOVE PROFANITY.  PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT SUCH LANGUAGE.  Preacherman.

[Perd Hapley]

Rabbi, take your four-letter words to another thread.

[cosine]

Never mind. Poster's remorse. T'weren't polite, even if fistful and I do go back-and-forth thata way.

[Gewehr98]

Yeah, I start my training shortly at Fort McCoy, they want me in place and ready for Halloween.  (Evidently, Madison has problems not unlike Detroit on that particular evening)

Regarding Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, they don't imbibe at or near my domicile, just like they refrained when I was active-duty military - too much was at at stake.  The consequences to them would be even more painful than my own were my clearance or commission revoked because of their stupidity - they at least understand and begrudgingly abide by it, even with the snide "Piggie" remarks. They just go somewhere else to toke up.  

Their mother and I sent them to her brother's place in Minnesota last weekend for some "us" time, and to plot the road ahead, both for them and she and I.  We (not just me) agreed that the apartments a dozen miles away would be best for them to indulge in their chosen non-vocation and lifestyles, while providing some measure of tranquility for herself and I, being 44 and 40, respectively.  That's about as close to cutting the apron strings as I can get for now. Whatever they do there in their own place, if it's just them, I don't see it, I don't have to worry about it, and perhaps if police are involved, it's Sun Prairie Police Department vs. Dane County Sheriff's Office.  

My biggest dog has even gotten involved, when they scream at each other during a particularly bad session of Warcraft online, he barks with his St. Bernard/Catahoula voice and then bites the louder transgressor in the backside to shut them up.  Same thing happens when they get into a punching match. Works like a charm, and it's hilarious, but only because the situation provided for his fight-disarming skills and it's lessened the altercations to some degree since he adopted the technique.

[cordex]

OK.  My standard is that what is illegal now ought to remain so with severe penalties.  What is legal now ought to remain so.  Not hard to understand.

Put a lot of thought into these standards, did you?

Your arguments seem to be: people get *expletive deleted*ed up on drugs and they get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze so there shouldn't be any distinction legally.

No, I'm saying that if you believe that alcohol use is a good thing, it doesn't make sense to prohibit drugs with similar or lesser harmful effects.

My position is that while people may get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze, that isnt the primary purpose or the largest use of alcohol.  Thus there is a big distinction.

You think the primary purpose and largest use of alcohol is not to get intoxicated?
Oh ... right.  Just like alcohol digests like food and alcohol isn't a drug.  Of course, why not?  People buy Corvettes to go 55mph too.  And folks buy bongs for decoration!  Why didn't I realize that before?  People by alcohol because they enjoy the flavor, want to prevent heart disease and for its considerable nutritional value.

You sure showed me the error of my ways.

And if you assert that alcohol causes problems when over-consumed I reply that your solution is just to make that worse.

I don't think I've stated any particular solution, just a method for analyzing the problem.  Don't let that slow you down, though.

[The Rabbi]

OK.  My standard is that what is illegal now ought to remain so with severe penalties.  What is legal now ought to remain so.  Not hard to understand.

Put a lot of thought into these standards, did you?

I put it in terms that I thought you could comprehend.  Maybe I was wrong.

Your arguments seem to be: people get *expletive deleted*ed up on drugs and they get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze so there shouldn't be any distinction legally.

No, I'm saying that if you believe that alcohol use is a good thing, it doesn't make sense to prohibit drugs with similar or lesser harmful effects.

Yes, crack has been shown to be beneficial over long term use.

My position is that while people may get *expletive deleted*ed up on booze, that isnt the primary purpose or the largest use of alcohol.  Thus there is a big distinction.

You think the primary purpose and largest use of alcohol is not to get intoxicated?
Oh ... right.  Just like alcohol digests like food and alcohol isn't a drug.  Of course, why not?  People buy Corvettes to go 55mph too.  And folks buy bongs for decoration!  Why didn't I realize that before?  People by alcohol because they enjoy the flavor, want to prevent heart disease and for its considerable nutritional value.

You sure showed me the error of my ways.

A neon billboard from God could not do that.  You obviously have turned off.  I don't know where you come from but I can tell you that among many, maybe most, people drinking is not for the sake of getting drunk.  It has many other social parameters and uses as well.

And if you assert that alcohol causes problems when over-consumed I reply that your solution is just to make that worse.

I don't think I've stated any particular solution, just a method for analyzing the problem.  Don't let that slow you down, though.

Sorry, I was thinking ahead of you.  Again.

[cordex]

I put it in terms that I thought you could comprehend.  Maybe I was wrong.

Oh I comprehend your terms, just not your reasoning.

Yes, crack has been shown to be beneficial over long term use.

Sorry, I missed where I said anything like that.

A neon billboard from God could not do that.  You obviously have turned off.  I don't know where you come from but I can tell you that among many, maybe most, people drinking is not for the sake of getting drunk.  It has many other social parameters and uses as well.

The primary reason for drinking alcohol is for the sake of intoxication.  Getting drunk is simply an elevated level of intoxication.

You may not drink because you enjoy the effects of your chosen drug, and that's fine, but you are the exception, not the rule.

[The Rabbi]

The primary reason for drinking alcohol is for the sake of intoxication.  Getting drunk is simply an elevated level of intoxication.

You may not drink because you enjoy the effects of your chosen drug, and that's fine, but you are the exception, not the rule.

Maybe in your circles.

[Perd Hapley]

Rabbi,

Erase the f-word from your posts, please.

[cordex]

Rabbi,
Someday, when you are capable of polite, rational discussion, maybe we'll talk again.