Shotgun

Yeah, I wonder if it was short for Francis? But, you know, she was a Texas woman. Which is sort of like being a man.

I liked the message. My (cynical? ) comment was just me thinking out loud.

Hey, I was at his house just a few weeks ago. Check out what he had parked in his backyard: (Backyard, bunghole... Hmm, no pun intended. )

They stopped inspections at a medical facility because of an "attitude"?

I sometimes wonder if the constant redefining of "God" is some kind of aversion to saying, "I don't believe in God." I think I'm in love. Careful; I'm an atheist.

I sometimes wonder if the constant redefining of "God" is some kind of aversion to saying, "I don't believe in God."

I assumed your reply (two posts above) was directed at him and not at me.(???)

Do these people exist?

Yes there is, that's why I said earlier the Federal drug acts are Unconstitutional. I am curious to hear your explanation of this.

I didn't reject anything. I just suggested that more could be done. More can always be done, if people are just willing to think about it instead of making a knee-jerk rejection of any proposal. True. So.... What did you think of my proposals for reducing DWI deaths?

I didn't get that impression at all. ("Not as bad as crack" does not necessarily equal "harmless." ;-) It has been my perception that the government (and the media) has done a poor job of educating the public about any drugs; seems to be lots of misinformation out there. But then the public is free to do their own research. (Well, they might end up in prison for it, but . . .)

How absurd, but this is the DorkZone. I have already been accused of "wanting skydiving to be banned" all because people have died in the sport (without saying anything remotely close to such nonsense) and now I am being accused for wanting alcohol to be banned? Too funny ... I have already stated my position on the matter and no matter what I say, there is nothing I say that means fuck all in this world. I am not the messiah who was sent to us to save the world. I have no power ... I just know there are thousands of "Dawn of the Dead" zombies roaming the streets of "Hastings and Main" in the downtown eastside of Vancouver and this is the result when people ingest their bodies with such harmful substances. Not accusing you of anything. But I think that your perception of the drug problem (including alcohol) might be skewed by these zombies you keep talking about, which do not necessarily represent the overall picture. You seem to think that crack is a far worse drug than alcohol, and you are entitled to your opinion, so if that is the case then I'll just disagree with you (my opinion) and leave it at that.

Alcohol is a hard drug, and it has destroyed far more lives than crack or any of the other illegal hard drugs. And it accounts for a much larger percentage of health problems and therefore healthcare. The arguments that you are making about the other drugs make it sound like you think alcohol should be illegal too. That, and you're also demonstrating that prohibition isn't exactly working.

I didn't reject anything. I just suggested that more could be done.

Technical point; you just did. True. I guess what I meant is that it's impossible to compare the relative danger of alcohol vs. illegal drugs, since the legal status of alcohol likely accounts for an indeterminable portion of it's status at the top of the drug scourge.

Does that mean that you think alcohol should be illegal? Or are you OK with drug laws being inconsistent? (In the U.S., alcohol fits the criteria for a Schedule 1 drug, or maybe a Schedule 2 since it does have some medical use.) Alcohol is a chemical. In theory, I don't think it is the government's place to decide what we can put in our own bodies. But practically, yeah, I'm not sure how it would work to have legal crack, heroin, or meth. Right now, alcohol causes way more problems than all of the illegal drugs combined. But it's really impossible to compare it with the other drugs.

I don't suppose you are forgetting Barry and his cocaine use are you? Well, I don't personally know him. But if I did, yes, I'd lump him in with all of the other not-so-law-abiding people that I know. Though I do have to say that his personal cocaine use is less of a concern to me than the behavior of my friends who drive 90 in a 65 (sometimes while texting!). The latter shows not only a disrespect for the law, but also a disregard for others' lives, so I would be more concerned with those folks being allowed to have guns.

Hmm.... trying to think of anyone I know who has never broken _any_ laws........ Can't think of even one.

Yes, I agree.

No doubt. Someone who does the hard drug alcohol would be much more dangerous in possession of a firearm than someone who only smokes marijuana. (But I'm not saying that alcohol users should be banned from owning firearms, unless there is a reason beyond the simple drug use.)

Most people use drugs (alcohol, caffeine, etc.). "Illegal" might be an important qualifier in that question.

On one hand I agree with you. But I have such little respect for the drug laws, that I don't think of a drug user as a serious criminal. The fact that one is willing to break an unjust law does not mean that he would also be willing to break a just law.

Yeah, the rate is similar to the firearm homicide rate.

Because of the fact that it's a felony? Or because drugs that would count as a felony are perceived to be more harmful than legal drugs?

And yet the DWI (and other alcohol-related) death rate is still high. We could probably cut that down even more by keeping a database of anyone who has a history of alcohol problems (any alcohol-related arrests/convictions, medical treatments or "I'm so drunk" posts on dropzone.com could automatically put them in this category), and making it illegal for these people to purchase/own or operate vehicles. And maybe require all vehicles to have breathalyzer ignitions that won't start if any alcohol is present. Yes, I'm just being obnoxious.