|
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2004 : 10:43:18 [Permalink]
|
Wow, reading this thread I realize anything I say will be redundant; there's something I agree and disagree with in everybody's posts. This is why it enrages me when people compartmentalize liberals, conservatives, anarchists, etc. into boxes, because there are many shades within each group.
For instance, though first I should say thanks to Filthy for welcoming me in the wacky fundie sites thread--I appreciated that; your banging your head against the brick wall called "Verlch," was amusing too (my sympathies). But to pick you out as an example of the above, I agree with you on many things, but disagree with you on the drug issue. And I too have had someone live with me, steal things, and if I continued to let him live here, I would have no TVs, computers or such. He is now dead as a result of his crack addiction, and as painful and frustrating as all of that was, I have not changed my views on the War on Drugs(tm) issue: I agree with Les, in short. (But that's all for another thread, I guess).
I wanted to comment to Les when I had reached this post of his. Again, I apologize for redundancy (this board is great, but a bit overwhelming for me).
quote:
Les said:If the doctor was not responsible for the tragic events in question, then Edwards is morally responsible not to destroy that doctor's life and career. I'm not a scientist either, but if most researchers believe that doctors are not responsible for the condition, then I would think it would take a great deal of objective evidence to justify blaming a doctor. If a baby is born with a defective heart and the parents want to sue the doctor and the hospital, destroying the doctor's career and increasing health-care costs in the process, then no lawyer is legally or morally obligated to take that case.
And in the same post:
quote:
Les said:Please provide a list of how any of the Great Society programs have improved the lot for the underpriveledged. Tell me what Clinton did or even stood for that helped people (I mean besides presiding over the forced removal of more gays and lesbians from the military than under any other president, lowering emissions standards in cars, or removing the financial safety net for impoverished children for the first time in sixty years). I'm genuinely curious.
As far as a list of Johnson's accomplishments, I could give you an even longer list of the American soldiers and innocent men, women, and children who were blown to pieces and burned alive in Viet Nam, which Johnson pursued with as much competence and honesty as our current administration. Carter oversaw our assistance of death squads in Cental America and the genocide in East Timor. Clinton killed civilians in Iraq and threatened the lives of millions in Africa when he bombed a pharmaceutical warehouse in Sudan. The corruption of the Democrats and Republicans all over the country, past and present, is well documented.
I think I get where Les is coming from--at least in advocating raising the bar on the moral behavior of trial lawyers, our government and its political system. These two paragraphs have the parallel issue of morality and self-interest. We don't know for sure in Edward's case, but an attorney taking a case he knows is weak and/or just plain wrong, but sees the potential to manipulate the facts with his great skills and thus fool the jury, is morally reprehensible. It is ultimately the jury's job to discern good evidence from theatrics and oratory skills, but, yeah, it's morally repugnant. Yet, by law, in the case of a public defender, an attorney has to do this whether he feels with certainty a person is guilty (not a moral conundrum I'd like to have).
If Edwards were an opportunistic shyster, then he would be blatantly opposing ethical jurisprudence. It would make him a bad lawyer and one who should probably go to the 8th Circle of Hell, if I believed in such a thing as Hell(I don't, but Dante is fun). The jury is the last wall of defense against shyster lawyers and juries are just ordinary people given to being swayed by all sorts of persuasive tactics in life. What do we do about this Les? I watched a friend go to a lying PI attorney for a "sore neck" that I knew wasn't sore at all and she got just under $7,000 (the threshhold amount, I believe, that warrants the cost of the defendant's lawyer). It's infuriating (and she is no longer my friend), but what to do? It is very difficult to prove that an attorney knowingly took a bad case.
In the case of our government, the State has never acted with moral ambitions--it has always been about the self-interest of the state. Yes, I agree with all the accomplishments that Democrats and liberals have brought about to protect and raise the standard of living for the People, but Les is right in that our "lesser of two evils" poltical system is doing nothing to raise the standards of the system itself. No wonder anarchists don't vote at all! But again, what to do Les? I'm going to sound Chomsky-like here, but the nature of government has never been to act with moral certitude. Never. Oh, we may do nice things here and there, but it's ultimately about self-interest and survival. We are far better than other countries in this respect, but our complicity causes a cognitive dissonance that I'm sure you've given much thought to.
Again, what to do? How do we change the inherent nature of government? Can we ever change it? Some people believe it's possible. I don't think so, because I don't think human nature will ever change, so I am exasperated by this issue.
Likewise with our political system; which stinks for all the reasons posters above mentioned. I voted for Dean in the Texas primary,(when it finally got around to us) for no reason other than to let Dean know someone in Texas voted for him. My vote was anti-climatic. I will vote come November, because I have strong feelings about voter participation, but I have a sickly sort of feeling in my gut about it. Maybe I'll change my mind. I want Bush out so badly--actually it's mainly all his appointees I want out--that I may overcome the sick feeling, but this "lesser of two evils" idea is creating it's own "evil." We are simply maintaining a low standard of government.
Again, what to do? How do we overhaul our political system when its become a Leviathan of money and corporate interests? Debate about the Electoral College seems to go nowhere.
How do we get more Chris Bell's in Congress when he was redistricted out?? Arrgghh...(small rant)
Anyway, sorry about the length of this post. I just wanted to add some of my own babble as well as ask Les what he thinks we can do to solve these issues. It looks like there's some good people in this forum, and if a degree of civility is maintained here, I just may hang around some.
  
Oh, regarding genocide: I have not bought this book yet, though I intend to. I saw an interview with the author on Newsworld International recently and found her to be very interesting and confident about her research.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060541644/qid=1090685107/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-3088905-2549531
|
 |
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2004 : 22:10:55 [Permalink]
|
Wulfstan,
Good questions, all. I think all we can do is continue to think critically and be satisfied when we turn out to be wrong about something, as it represents a triumph of truth over opinion. I think we all have an instinctive desire to be "right," to win (whether it's an argument or an election) and, while I think these are understandable instincts, I don't think they're progressive.
What can we do? I remember an old episode of "Kung Fu" (don't laugh) in which one of his teachers said, "Evil can never be conquered. It can only be resisted in the idividual." Well, I guess I believe that if every individual strove to improve him/herself intellectually and morally, solutions to our problems would naturally present themselves.
For instance, what if everyone who made more than a million dollars a year were to voluntarily take everything over, say, $250,000 and put it in a fund that was devoted to jobs programs, education, health care, etc.? If those programs were well-managed (i.e., with little or no help from the government), we could help so many people that fall through the cracks which are daily pried open by our corrupt and incomptent government.
That's the strange thing, though. I know there aren't any natural laws that demand that the government be incompetent and corrupt, but that's how it tends to be. Since there aren't any natural laws making that happen (and since I believe human nature actually can change with some help from objective knowledge), I still have hope for a government in the future that can be trusted to do things with more than a 50% success rate. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 02:57:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
For instance, though first I should say thanks to Filthy for welcoming me in the wacky fundie sites thread--I appreciated that; your banging your head against the brick wall called "Verlch," was amusing too (my sympathies). But to pick you out as an example of the above, I agree with you on many things, but disagree with you on the drug issue. And I too have had someone live with me, steal things, and if I continued to let him live here, I would have no TVs, computers or such. He is now dead as a result of his crack addiction, and as painful and frustrating as all of that was, I have not changed my views on the War on Drugs(tm) issue: I agree with Les, in short. (But that's all for another thread, I guess).
Hm. Yes. Verlch......
That ended up more of a mental excercise for me than anything else. I tried everything from Mr. Nice Skeptic to Mr. Foul, Evil, and Rabid Skeptic to get him to shake loose a little from the dogma of ICR charlatans and think for himself, but to no avail. A pity. He is losing so much of his life.
Crack is some truly nasty shit. Those who are hooked on it live from one rock to the next. I too, know a couple of people on it. One had his colors stripped in my motorccyle club for it (and he won't be back with us, ever), but is currently in rehab. I'm betting that he won't stay clean, no matter what. The other is currently on bail, a situation he visits now and then, mainly for posession. Incidently, both are white. The latter of this sad pair is well enough off (has a small furniture business) that he has yet to resort to larceny to tote his monkey, although no one can predict how long that or his business will last. The former will not be discussed further.
So, I must ask; what's to be done? The War on Drugs is obviously a failure almost on a level comparable to Prohibition. Like that blunder, it has built it's own underground economy protected by murder, mayhem and extortion. I think that it is, in a backhanded sort of way, also supported by the polititions. Nobody likes a junkie, not even other junkies who fear for their stashs, right? If a pol has nothing else to say, he can rail about the Drug Menace, and Joe and Jane voter will be all ears (he hopes).
I have no solution. Indeed, I'm not sure that I, or anyone for that matter, understands the sheer magnitude of the problem. It is not just our country facing it, but virtually the entire world. And every country that has a suitable climate for growing coca or poppy is doing so with record crop yields. The refined products are gobbled up as fast as they can be produced. And that's just the illegal stuff.
Prescription drug abuse is whole 'nother scene, sometimes kind of silly. Fer 'xample, I was told during a recent visit to the VA hospital that the VA now sees oxycotin as a street drug and now prescribes oxycodin instead. Having used both, as far as I can tell, the only difference is in the spelling.
Once a quiet, little addiction of the well-off, these too have hit the street scene as has virtually all of the synthetic narcotics, and business is brisk. Which begs the question of 'wheredahell are the dealers getting their stock?' This stuff is supposed to be controlled tighter'n W's spincter. The answer is of course, that parts of the legal drug industry have been corrupted.
I do not envy John & John when they address this problem, as they will have to do, sooner or later.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2004 : 13:27:20 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote:quote:
So, I must ask; what's to be done? The War on Drugs is obviously a failure almost on a level comparable to Prohibition. Like that blunder, it has built it's own underground economy protected by murder, mayhem and extortion.
I'd just like to interject that it's important to remember that there is still an underground economy for alcohol, and even one for tobacco. Prohibition didn't create a black market, but rather drove all of the activity to the one which was already present.
Also, many of the drugs being combatted in "the War on Drugs" have never been legal here (or were only long enough for the government to learn about them and classify them as controlled substances), and so even before this "War" got its name, they were only available "underground." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2004 : 06:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave, there has always been a black market for almost everything from cigaretts to motorcycle parts, even to soap, coffee, and chocolet (these last during WW II, mostly, but I've read that in some 3rd World countries it's still business as usual with these items). Historicly, prohibitions have only made those markets more profitable. George Washington's Whiskey War began the moonshine industry a couple of centuries ago, and that is still going strong today, although now, many in the moon business here in NC have taken to growing pot. Better money for less work, I'm told. But ask a working 'shiner if he'd like to see Prohibition return. You bet he would!
We are funny animals. Tell us that we can't have something, and we'll move heaven and earth, and dig up hell to get some, even knowing it's going to do us harm. Laws and regulations, and punishments for violations mean nothing.
As I said, I have no solution. Perhaps someone wiser than I can come up with something; or perhaps there is no solution.
I read this morning that there are now over 7,000,000 people in the can. I haven't seen a breakdown of the figure, but I'll bet that a (un)healthy percentage of them are non-violent drug offenders. The sad part is that these persone might well leave prison anything but non-violent.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 15:09:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As I said, I have no solution. Perhaps someone wiser than I can come up with something; or perhaps there is no solution.
There is no solution, I don't believe, to drug abuse en masse, whether it's alcohol, crack, tobacco, what have you. There will always be those who are unable to control themselves in regards to drugs (or sex or TV or fast cars, among many other things).
That said, I do believe that it's as apparent that the drug war has failed (in terms of pure harm reduction) as it is that evolution has occurred. We also know that the drug war has helped to create a great deal of inefficiency and corruption in our police departments. There are some excellent articles here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/mcn/mcntoc.htm
by Joseph McNamara, a former police chief.
I think the first step is to treat marijuana, which we know to be less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, the same way we treat tobacco and alcohol. That there are prohibitionists who would deny marijuana even to those who are sick and dying and derive pain relief from it is a good indicator of the typical prohibitionist mind-set.
Harder drugs like heroin and cocaine should be decriminalized and we should focus on treatment for those who need it. I don't agree with the theory that if we make these drugs legal that most people will choose to experiment with them. The vast majority of illegal drug users, just like the majority of legal drug users, use drugs responsibly. The reason for this is because the vast majority of people know what it takes to lead a productive, rewarding life, without the help of the government, which says, "Well, you can have a good life drinking alcohol as much as you want, but if you try cocaine or heroin, then we'll have to put you in jail for your own good."
The drug war is, to me, the equivalent of trying to correct one's vision with a hammer. After almost a century of unsuccessful effort with the hammer, there are still those who'll say, "Keep trying! We're making some real progress!"
P.S. I hope I'm ranting more appropriately, here.  |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 18:39:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
P.S. I hope I'm ranting more appropriately, here.
Rant away, friend Les. My skin is uncommon thick and I've just finished a project motorcycle. You couldn't spoil my mood with anything short of a .30-06.  !
But actually, I agree with you virtually point by point.
What it 'stills off to is that instead of a 'war' on drugs, it should be assistance for addiction, and various crimes, if any, can be paid for in due course. Not perfect, but better'n what we have now. Probably less expensive, as well.
Incidently, I'm talking about addicts, not the human vermin who prey upon them for as long as they last (a really serious heroin junkie doesn't last all that long. They seldom eat and look like a poisoned corpse. Sometimes, detox will kill them. It is my understandng that long-term crack heads are pretty much the same thing). And the blood-suckers will be with us forever, often in the guise of a savior.
But will anything change, even with a new and saner administration? I doubt it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2004 : 18:48:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
P.S. I hope I'm ranting more appropriately, here.
But will anything change, even with a new and saner administration? I doubt it.
That's the big problem. As much of an improvement Kerry/Edwards would be over Bush/Cheney, too many people are profiting too much from the status quo for anything to change. Damn, I need a liquid drug. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 05:40:34 [Permalink]
|
"The vast majority of illegal drug users, just like the majority of legal drug users, use drugs responsibly"
You're kidding, right?
There's no way to use cigarettes, marijuana, or the other illegal drugs "responsibly." By using them, you're being irresponsible with your health, risking addiction, doing your body (lungs, heart, etc.) damage, increasing your risk of any number of diseases, driving up health care costs, DUIs, etc.
Did you know the female partners of male cigarette smokers have a greater risk of cervical cancer? They're 'responsible', all right...partly responsible for possibly killing their partners. No way would I have sex with a smoker; it puts my health in jeopardy.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/cervical/HealthProfessional/page3
(reference above for verification)
Les, you don't seem to get the public health nightmare that is drug use. Legalzing them is not going to make them less harmful to your health.
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 10:04:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
"The vast majority of illegal drug users, just like the majority of legal drug users, use drugs responsibly"
You're kidding, right?
There's no way to use cigarettes, marijuana, or the other illegal drugs "responsibly." By using them, you're being irresponsible with your health, risking addiction, doing your body (lungs, heart, etc.) damage, increasing your risk of any number of diseases, driving up health care costs, DUIs, etc.
Did you know the female partners of male cigarette smokers have a greater risk of cervical cancer? They're 'responsible', all right...partly responsible for possibly killing their partners. No way would I have sex with a smoker; it puts my health in jeopardy.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/cervical/HealthProfessional/page3
(reference above for verification)
Les, you don't seem to get the public health nightmare that is drug use. Legalzing them is not going to make them less harmful to your health.
Actually, I think that there is evidence that making, say, heroin legal would make it safer, since the impurities that kill people would naturally decrease.
But besides that, the point is that we're talking about my health, the health of the individual. Does the government have a right to force you to take care of yourself? Since obesity and lack of activity kills tens of thousands (many, many more than illegal drugs) should it be illegal to eat terribly and not exercise?
The link you added said, in regard to cervical cancer patients:
They had more sex partners, more cigarette smoking, earlier ages at first sexual intercourse, and lower socioeconomic status.
It didn't at all or in any way suggest that having more sex partners, smoking cigarettes, having sex earlier or being at a lower socioeconomic status caused cervical cancer. It was merely making note of these commonalities. It did say that risks "may be present with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as well..." (italics mine) I don't think it's been clearly demonstrated that your health is at risk by having sex with a smoker. But they don't taste very good, so there's a reason not to, right there. 
If it is possible to drive responsibly (an activity that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year), then it certainly is possible to use drugs responsibly.
Unlike smoking a joint or having a drink in your living room, driving anywhere puts other people in danger as well as yourself. Think of all the lives we'd save if we made it illegal to drive recreationally. A lot more people are killed and injured in car accidents then are killed or injured by illegal drugs.
Maybe we're making a mistake looking at this problem on these grand scales of tens of thousands of deaths and crime on the streets, cats and dogs living together -- sorry, I lapsed into Bill Murray's speech from "Stripes."
How about a simple scenario to discuss? Let's say that I have three marijuana plants growing in my backyard. I smoke what I grow and occassionally share it with friends on social occassions. Do you think I should go to jail for these activities? Why or why not? |
| Edited by - Les on 07/29/2004 16:52:42 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 17:47:50 [Permalink]
|
Les, are you an epidemiologist? If not, then why are you challenging the epidemiologists' research on passive smoking and cervical cancer? That's how epidemiology works; it looks at risks in a defined population. Are you questioning the value of any epidemiological study, or just passive smoking and cervical cancer? If you're challenging that specific research, I suggest you find peer-reviewed research that shows no correlation. Either correlational or epi research has value or it doesn't...which is it?
It is impossible to use drugs responsibly. Your actions, even when you do them to your own body, have an impact on others.
If you are smoking marijuana and sharing it with your friends, you're more likely to get lung cancer (as an example) and so are your friends. If you're insured and you contract lung cancer, then my insurance rates are higher because of your treatment-- because I'm LESS likely to get lung cancer (and yes, I could get it anyway, but at least I'm not being irresponsible.) If you're uninsured, then taxpayers (me) will pay for your care--or you'll default on your medical bills, which raises medical bills for the rest of us. In other words, I'm subsidizing your medical care by NOT using drugs. As such, I have a vested interest in you NOT doing drugs, unless you agree to waive all medical care for your resulting (more likely) illnesses.
Thus, if you smoke pot, you are behaving irresponsibly and forcing others in society to care for you. That obesity and sedentary lifestyles also contribute to health problems isn't relevant; I have no problem with the government instituting health and fitness programs along with drug prevention and treatment programs.
From the American Cancer Society:
"Marijuana cigarettes have more tar than regular cigarettes. Many of the cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. Some medical reports suggest that marijuana could cause cancers of the mouth and throat. But because marijuana is an illegal substance it is not easy to gather information about its effects on the body."
From NIH:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html
Effects on heart function (increased risk of heart attack), learning and memory (increased high school drop-out rates among users) and many other effects.
So...it's a public health problem, not a personal rights issue.
And I still don't know what the solution is, either. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 21:33:58 [Permalink]
|
I wasn't really arguing against a correlation, only that causation hadn't been demonstrated.
You're right that when individuals engage in risky behavior, health costs and health insurance go up. But since my chances of getting in a injurious car accident go up every time I go for a recreational drive (though it's not certain that I'll be injured just as it's not certain that smoking marijuana or even cigarettes will make you ill), isn't it just as wrong to go out for recreational trips in the car? What about skydiving? Race-car driving? Bicycling? More people are injured and killed doing those things than are injured or killed from smoking marijuana (marijuana smoke has been documented to have been the cause of exactly zero deaths, btw).
Like you, I don't know what the solution is to risky behavior like smoking and drinking and using other drugs. The government believes that the solution is to put the users and sellers of some of those drugs into prison, and strangely, they've chosen some of the less dangerous drugs to imprison people for.
So, considering that there are much riskier behaviors than smoking pot, like obesity, drinking alcohol, and driving recreationally, which are perfectly legal and always will be, do you believe that people who grow and smoke pot should be put into jail? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 22:27:52 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
...unless you agree to waive all medical care for your resulting (more likely) illnesses.
Les wrote:quote:
What about skydiving? Race-car driving? Bicycling?
It's funny, but I've been a quiet advocate of "risky behaviour insurance" for years now.
Want to go skiing? Fine, but you'll have to purchase skiing insurance in case you break your leg, or else pay for your abulance trip, x-rays and cast all by yourself.
Same thing with bungee jumping, car racing, mountain climbing, and the rest.
So why not "recreational drug-use insurance?" You pay a buttload up front, so that when you lose your job or O.D. or even want to get the monkey off your back, it'll cover your healthcare costs for that particular problem.
The hassle is, of course, the long-term effects, and how to distribute them. Does your spelunking insurance pay for cancer treatment after you were unknowingly exposed to high levels of radon in a cave, or does your normal health insurance pony up for it since it'd really be a cancer of unknown origin?
If you've got no regular health insurance, and cut your arm off with your circular saw in your garage by accident, do you try to get your "medieval re-enactment bare-iron fighting insurance" to pay for it instead?
Yeah, what makes the system unworkable is the fact that long-term effects won't be attributable, and the potential for abuse of the zillions of different insurance policies would be sky high.
But it's a dream I have... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 08:04:31 [Permalink]
|
Not to add more fuel to this fire but - your insurance rates go up when uninsured people are treated as well. This is something I just recently learned, and I can see now that it's not common knowledge.
I always thought taxes paid for the uninsured. Not so. People who pay for insurance pay for the uninsured.
Here's is the article: HFMA |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 09:25:42 [Permalink]
|
Dream, Dave, dream!!
My opposition to seatbelt laws (again based on the philosophy that my body belongs to me and not a people's collective) has always come with the idea that if you're caught driving without a seatbelt (or riding a motorcycle without a helmet), you'd have to present proof of a kind of "super-insurance" which would eliminate the financial burden of an injury from being passed on to others, the stated reason for those types of laws. |
| Edited by - Les on 07/30/2004 09:26:11 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
