Poster Child for Legalization? Chattanooga Shooter had multiple addictions

[Moonglow]

I did illegal drugs for many, many years and suffered no health problems and payed for it all by my own labor....As has millions others...

Dear Moonglow
social responsibility is not just paying for your own costs
but the consequences you incur to others by your influence and actions.

for example, there is a former City Council member Michael Berry who
loves to rant over the radio that people should have the right to drive and drink,
to enjoy a beer or whatever while driving. He honestly believes it is up to the
people to make and police that choice, and doesn't believe it is the place of govt.

Now, if he goes around promoting drinking and driving, and his listeners
have a higher rate of doing that, thinking it is justified because they heard a Conservative
libertarian independent type argue and defend it using political or constitutional arguments,
what if one of his followers has a wreck driving drunk and causes damage, injury or death?

Wouldn't you say there is INDIRECT influence and responsibility
for encouraging drunk driving? it is still up to the driver legally to take responsibility;
but socially isn't some of the burden on the people like Berry pushing the
idea that people have the right to drink and drive.

It's not a good idea, yet if you do, you yourself must bare the burden...

Dear Moonglow
What about people who aren't fully legally competent and able to take that responsibility.

If pushing for legalization of drug or pushing for lenient laws on drunk driving
"opens the door" for UNSTABLE people to abuse drugs and end up harming others,
isn't that part of the equation?

People argue about this for
* gun rights vs. gun control
* abortion rights and responsibility
* immigration and corporate laws -- if you give amnesty to violators
or grant personhood to corporations where this is "too easily abused by CRIMINALS"
what if they aren't the type that can carry out responsibility.

if you allow criminally ill people to get a hold of guns or drugs,
where this harms others, isn't some of that on the people who
failed to write and enforce safer regulations that could prevent this?

The state I live in is harsh on DWI's....They are tough on issues of illegal drug use in homes with kids...a DWI one will cost you about 4k...and the DWI stays on your record for life......meaning that if you get 3 or more, it will be prison time....2 and 3 are jail times with fines and costs of about 10k....
I got busted growing weed, it was a 367 dollar fine...
There is no way of keeping drugs, alcohol and weapons out of the hands of people that want them bad enough, by making it illegal, it will only drive it underground to a black market and is harder to control and observe what is happening....legalization allows for better enforcement and education allows people to know what they are dealing with prior to OJT...

 

[emilynghiem]

The ultimate in irony is the president visiting (fellow?) drug addicts at a federal prison and calling for lighter sentences for drug addicts at almost the exact moment a drug addict is murdering U.S. Marines on U.S. soil a couple of days after a (non-violent?) drug kingpin escapes from a Mexican prison Don't count on the liberal media to note the irony or the reluctance of the president to lower the Flags in the U.S. capital until forced into it by political pressure after he made his point of insulting the Military once more..

Nor do I get how we are supposed to work toward accountability and responsibility for "universal health care" costs, while at the same time "experimenting" with legalization! How are states supposed to monitor the effects of legislation when these are at cross purposes. Why invite more drug use, and then expect the public taxpayer to pay costs of health care, medical treatment, and therapy?

Because, dumbass, making "negative health effects" the standard for keeping something illegal means we have to illegalize 100's of things before we even IMAGINE marijuana should be illegal for this reason.


Its a retarded and impossible standard. Try thinking past your tripe and the truth may molly whop you, some day.

Dear G.T.
1. First of all WHERE did I say anything dishonest? What are you talking about?
2. Secondly I actually support decriminalization. I believe in setting up some other level of law
besides just civil or criminal, that can handle policing abuses and addictions without criminalizing
and penalizing people.

So you are jumping to conclusions and assuming things.

This is a very deep discussion, and you cannot possibly read my mind and know
all the background and the future solutions I propose to address this ethically
where it is entirely by people's consent how laws are to be applied and enforced,
and there is neither criminalization nor legalization forced on people, but there is CONSENSUS on policy.

Please explain where I said anything dishonest, and I am happy to correct
whatever got miscommunicated there! Thanks G.T.

The programs they are implementing now are better than what they used in the past to treat addictions.....They are learning that the user is not a lost soul that can't be saved and each person has a different method for dealing with the abuse...Education and killing the stigma is part of the program...

Still, if we know that certain substances have a risk of abuse or addiction,
doesn't it make sense to make that the target of policy?

For example, instead of civil or criminal violations, adding the option of a health and safety code
where using drugs or alcohol to enable or further addiction or abuse is policed. And people agree
and sign in advance to go through mediation and counseling if any complaints are issued about
excessive drug use, also relationship abuse. If the problem is when it becomes ABUSIVE, why not address that instead of trying to pretend that abuse or addiction are not a major risk.

 

[emilynghiem]

I did illegal drugs for many, many years and suffered no health problems and payed for it all by my own labor....As has millions others...

Dear Moonglow
social responsibility is not just paying for your own costs
but the consequences you incur to others by your influence and actions.

for example, there is a former City Council member Michael Berry who
loves to rant over the radio that people should have the right to drive and drink,
to enjoy a beer or whatever while driving. He honestly believes it is up to the
people to make and police that choice, and doesn't believe it is the place of govt.

Now, if he goes around promoting drinking and driving, and his listeners
have a higher rate of doing that, thinking it is justified because they heard a Conservative
libertarian independent type argue and defend it using political or constitutional arguments,
what if one of his followers has a wreck driving drunk and causes damage, injury or death?

Wouldn't you say there is INDIRECT influence and responsibility
for encouraging drunk driving? it is still up to the driver legally to take responsibility;
but socially isn't some of the burden on the people like Berry pushing the
idea that people have the right to drink and drive.

It's not a good idea, yet if you do, you yourself must bare the burden...

Dear Moonglow
What about people who aren't fully legally competent and able to take that responsibility.

If pushing for legalization of drug or pushing for lenient laws on drunk driving
"opens the door" for UNSTABLE people to abuse drugs and end up harming others,
isn't that part of the equation?

People argue about this for
* gun rights vs. gun control
* abortion rights and responsibility
* immigration and corporate laws -- if you give amnesty to violators
or grant personhood to corporations where this is "too easily abused by CRIMINALS"
what if they aren't the type that can carry out responsibility.

if you allow criminally ill people to get a hold of guns or drugs,
where this harms others, isn't some of that on the people who
failed to write and enforce safer regulations that could prevent this?

The state I live in is harsh on DWI's....They are tough on issues of illegal drug use in homes with kids...a DWI one will cost you about 4k...and the DWI stays on your record for life......meaning that if you get 3 or more, it will be prison time....2 and 3 are jail times with fines and costs of about 10k....
I got busted growing weed, it was a 367 dollar fine...

I believe in a Restorative Justice approach.
If people have disorders or other issues that are the reason for "self-medicating"
it doesn't make much sense to "punish mental illness" if someone really has a problem.

Whatever policies you have, I hope it takes into account the
people who need specialized therapy to heal the root causes
and problems that might affect their judgement and personality.

I believe a focus on medical treatment and rehab/recovery therapy would better
distinguish and address the really sick criminals, and not try to treat them all the same.

 

[G.T.]

The ultimate in irony is the president visiting (fellow?) drug addicts at a federal prison and calling for lighter sentences for drug addicts at almost the exact moment a drug addict is murdering U.S. Marines on U.S. soil a couple of days after a (non-violent?) drug kingpin escapes from a Mexican prison Don't count on the liberal media to note the irony or the reluctance of the president to lower the Flags in the U.S. capital until forced into it by political pressure after he made his point of insulting the Military once more..

Nor do I get how we are supposed to work toward accountability and responsibility for "universal health care" costs, while at the same time "experimenting" with legalization! How are states supposed to monitor the effects of legislation when these are at cross purposes. Why invite more drug use, and then expect the public taxpayer to pay costs of health care, medical treatment, and therapy?

Because, dumbass, making "negative health effects" the standard for keeping something illegal means we have to illegalize 100's of things before we even IMAGINE marijuana should be illegal for this reason.


Its a retarded and impossible standard. Try thinking past your tripe and the truth may molly whop you, some day.

Dear G.T.
1. First of all WHERE did I say anything dishonest? What are you talking about?
2. Secondly I actually support decriminalization. I believe in setting up some other level of law
besides just civil or criminal, that can handle policing abuses and addictions without criminalizing
and penalizing people.

So you are jumping to conclusions and assuming things.

This is a very deep discussion, and you cannot possibly read my mind and know
all the background and the future solutions I propose to address this ethically
where it is entirely by people's consent how laws are to be applied and enforced,
and there is neither criminalization nor legalization forced on people, but there is CONSENSUS on policy.

Please explain where I said anything dishonest, and I am happy to correct
whatever got miscommunicated there! Thanks G.T.

The programs they are implementing now are better than what they used in the past to treat addictions.....They are learning that the user is not a lost soul that can't be saved and each person has a different method for dealing with the abuse...Education and killing the stigma is part of the program...

Still, if we know that certain substances have a risk of abuse or addiction,
doesn't it make sense to make that the target of policy?

For example, instead of civil or criminal violations, adding the option of a health and safety code
where using drugs or alcohol to enable or further addiction or abuse is policed. And people agree
and sign in advance to go through mediation and counseling if any complaints are issued about
excessive drug use, also relationship abuse. If the problem is when it becomes ABUSIVE, why not address that instead of trying to pretend that abuse or addiction are not a major risk.

Like junkfood? Soda?

Or hadnt ya thought this all the way through yet?

Didnt think so.


Like i said, your asinine bigotry against weed is crossing paths with your obsessive "lets be fair (but lean towards my view tee hee) bullshit and you forgot there are 100s of perfectly LEGAL and unregulated things with FAR WORSE health effects than marijuana.

The cognitive dissonance is inherent dishonesty.

 

[Moonglow]

The ultimate in irony is the president visiting (fellow?) drug addicts at a federal prison and calling for lighter sentences for drug addicts at almost the exact moment a drug addict is murdering U.S. Marines on U.S. soil a couple of days after a (non-violent?) drug kingpin escapes from a Mexican prison Don't count on the liberal media to note the irony or the reluctance of the president to lower the Flags in the U.S. capital until forced into it by political pressure after he made his point of insulting the Military once more..

Nor do I get how we are supposed to work toward accountability and responsibility for "universal health care" costs, while at the same time "experimenting" with legalization! How are states supposed to monitor the effects of legislation when these are at cross purposes. Why invite more drug use, and then expect the public taxpayer to pay costs of health care, medical treatment, and therapy?

Because, dumbass, making "negative health effects" the standard for keeping something illegal means we have to illegalize 100's of things before we even IMAGINE marijuana should be illegal for this reason.


Its a retarded and impossible standard. Try thinking past your tripe and the truth may molly whop you, some day.

Dear G.T.
1. First of all WHERE did I say anything dishonest? What are you talking about?
2. Secondly I actually support decriminalization. I believe in setting up some other level of law
besides just civil or criminal, that can handle policing abuses and addictions without criminalizing
and penalizing people.

So you are jumping to conclusions and assuming things.

This is a very deep discussion, and you cannot possibly read my mind and know
all the background and the future solutions I propose to address this ethically
where it is entirely by people's consent how laws are to be applied and enforced,
and there is neither criminalization nor legalization forced on people, but there is CONSENSUS on policy.

Please explain where I said anything dishonest, and I am happy to correct
whatever got miscommunicated there! Thanks G.T.

The programs they are implementing now are better than what they used in the past to treat addictions.....They are learning that the user is not a lost soul that can't be saved and each person has a different method for dealing with the abuse...Education and killing the stigma is part of the program...

Still, if we know that certain substances have a risk of abuse or addiction,
doesn't it make sense to make that the target of policy?

For example, instead of civil or criminal violations, adding the option of a health and safety code
where using drugs or alcohol to enable or further addiction or abuse is policed. And people agree
and sign in advance to go through mediation and counseling if any complaints are issued about
excessive drug use, also relationship abuse. If the problem is when it becomes ABUSIVE, why not address that instead of trying to pretend that abuse or addiction are not a major risk.

20% of the population are addicts..I am totally against peer pressure on the issue of repressing individual freedoms...The problem with the Drug War is it is focusing on those that are addicts and dealers, yet as humans it has become corrupt to the point it is making the LEO's into criminals themselves by abusing the policy of enforcement and confiscation of property without due process...We are already paying for a failed policy by loosing the right to privacy.....I can't mitigate anymore losses for the few that can't control their actions....
The system you desire would and could be abused also, just like the urine tests for employment...

 

[emilynghiem]

The ultimate in irony is the president visiting (fellow?) drug addicts at a federal prison and calling for lighter sentences for drug addicts at almost the exact moment a drug addict is murdering U.S. Marines on U.S. soil a couple of days after a (non-violent?) drug kingpin escapes from a Mexican prison Don't count on the liberal media to note the irony or the reluctance of the president to lower the Flags in the U.S. capital until forced into it by political pressure after he made his point of insulting the Military once more..

Nor do I get how we are supposed to work toward accountability and responsibility for "universal health care" costs, while at the same time "experimenting" with legalization! How are states supposed to monitor the effects of legislation when these are at cross purposes. Why invite more drug use, and then expect the public taxpayer to pay costs of health care, medical treatment, and therapy?

Because, dumbass, making "negative health effects" the standard for keeping something illegal means we have to illegalize 100's of things before we even IMAGINE marijuana should be illegal for this reason.


Its a retarded and impossible standard. Try thinking past your tripe and the truth may molly whop you, some day.

Dear G.T.
1. First of all WHERE did I say anything dishonest? What are you talking about?
2. Secondly I actually support decriminalization. I believe in setting up some other level of law
besides just civil or criminal, that can handle policing abuses and addictions without criminalizing
and penalizing people.

So you are jumping to conclusions and assuming things.

This is a very deep discussion, and you cannot possibly read my mind and know
all the background and the future solutions I propose to address this ethically
where it is entirely by people's consent how laws are to be applied and enforced,
and there is neither criminalization nor legalization forced on people, but there is CONSENSUS on policy.

Please explain where I said anything dishonest, and I am happy to correct
whatever got miscommunicated there! Thanks G.T.

I believe you are an evil and cynical human being of the worst kind, you hide your bigotted and illogical views behind positive human attributes and I see througg it and it disgusts me.

Dear G.T. What are you TALKING ABOUT???
1. on the prochoice and prolife issue I support BOTH SIDES in defending their beliefs
2. on the progay and antigay, gay marriage and traditional marriage,
i support BOTH sides in defending their beliefs from being banned or discriminated against in public policy
3. same with gun rights and gun control
4. same with immigration issues, and death penalty

I believe all people's beliefs are to be equally respected by law.

So what is so evil about wanting to mediate conflicts so we can form
mutually acceptable solutions?

What evil do you see that you are projecting onto me?
What is giving you this impression?

I believe in consent of the governed NOT COERCION.

So all these conflicts should be resolved so NOBODY is forced
to be under some oppressive policy that violates their rights and beliefs.

What are you talking about G.T.?

I don't believe in imposing beliefs or religious mandates against the will of
people, but believe in consent of the governed as the basis of civil laws and govt,
so how is that evil???

Please explain, thank you! You can cite previous posts if that is where this
evil perception came from. this happens from time to time online, where
somebody gets the exact OPPOSITE impression of what I am really about.

I've had people take my words and interpret them in the total opposite way,
so I can only assume something went terribly wrong here.

I think it started with the gay issue where you thought I said or meant
something that isn't what I believe.

Lots of people misunderstand that issue, so this is not uncommon to
think I mean something else.

 

[Moonglow]

I did illegal drugs for many, many years and suffered no health problems and payed for it all by my own labor....As has millions others...

Dear Moonglow
social responsibility is not just paying for your own costs
but the consequences you incur to others by your influence and actions.

for example, there is a former City Council member Michael Berry who
loves to rant over the radio that people should have the right to drive and drink,
to enjoy a beer or whatever while driving. He honestly believes it is up to the
people to make and police that choice, and doesn't believe it is the place of govt.

Now, if he goes around promoting drinking and driving, and his listeners
have a higher rate of doing that, thinking it is justified because they heard a Conservative
libertarian independent type argue and defend it using political or constitutional arguments,
what if one of his followers has a wreck driving drunk and causes damage, injury or death?

Wouldn't you say there is INDIRECT influence and responsibility
for encouraging drunk driving? it is still up to the driver legally to take responsibility;
but socially isn't some of the burden on the people like Berry pushing the
idea that people have the right to drink and drive.

It's not a good idea, yet if you do, you yourself must bare the burden...

Dear Moonglow
What about people who aren't fully legally competent and able to take that responsibility.

If pushing for legalization of drug or pushing for lenient laws on drunk driving
"opens the door" for UNSTABLE people to abuse drugs and end up harming others,
isn't that part of the equation?

People argue about this for
* gun rights vs. gun control
* abortion rights and responsibility
* immigration and corporate laws -- if you give amnesty to violators
or grant personhood to corporations where this is "too easily abused by CRIMINALS"
what if they aren't the type that can carry out responsibility.

if you allow criminally ill people to get a hold of guns or drugs,
where this harms others, isn't some of that on the people who
failed to write and enforce safer regulations that could prevent this?

The state I live in is harsh on DWI's....They are tough on issues of illegal drug use in homes with kids...a DWI one will cost you about 4k...and the DWI stays on your record for life......meaning that if you get 3 or more, it will be prison time....2 and 3 are jail times with fines and costs of about 10k....
I got busted growing weed, it was a 367 dollar fine...

I believe in a Restorative Justice approach.
If people have disorders or other issues that are the reason for "self-medicating"
it doesn't make much sense to "punish mental illness" if someone really has a problem.

Whatever policies you have, I hope it takes into account the
people who need specialized therapy to heal the root causes
and problems that might affect their judgement and personality.

I believe a focus on medical treatment and rehab/recovery therapy would better
distinguish and address the really sick criminals, and not try to treat them all the same.

Doctors have been indoctrinated by force on the issue of self medicating, yet the medical community as a whole is rejecting already know values of MJ use...I can tell you personally that it is better than any of the dozen pills the doc prescribes, probably because it is natural..A natural medicine that has been used by humans for over 2000 years...
The use of rehab is going strong in Missouri, even in the prison system you must take rehab.But some if not many are slow learners and must be reintroduced to the same programs they have already have had....You can't give up.It just like treating a disease, just because one prognostication with a medical application does not work, does not mean you simply give up on curing the patient...
moderation is the blessing of life....

 

[G.T.]

The ultimate in irony is the president visiting (fellow?) drug addicts at a federal prison and calling for lighter sentences for drug addicts at almost the exact moment a drug addict is murdering U.S. Marines on U.S. soil a couple of days after a (non-violent?) drug kingpin escapes from a Mexican prison Don't count on the liberal media to note the irony or the reluctance of the president to lower the Flags in the U.S. capital until forced into it by political pressure after he made his point of insulting the Military once more..

Nor do I get how we are supposed to work toward accountability and responsibility for "universal health care" costs, while at the same time "experimenting" with legalization! How are states supposed to monitor the effects of legislation when these are at cross purposes. Why invite more drug use, and then expect the public taxpayer to pay costs of health care, medical treatment, and therapy?

Because, dumbass, making "negative health effects" the standard for keeping something illegal means we have to illegalize 100's of things before we even IMAGINE marijuana should be illegal for this reason.


Its a retarded and impossible standard. Try thinking past your tripe and the truth may molly whop you, some day.

Dear G.T.
1. First of all WHERE did I say anything dishonest? What are you talking about?
2. Secondly I actually support decriminalization. I believe in setting up some other level of law
besides just civil or criminal, that can handle policing abuses and addictions without criminalizing
and penalizing people.

So you are jumping to conclusions and assuming things.

This is a very deep discussion, and you cannot possibly read my mind and know
all the background and the future solutions I propose to address this ethically
where it is entirely by people's consent how laws are to be applied and enforced,
and there is neither criminalization nor legalization forced on people, but there is CONSENSUS on policy.

Please explain where I said anything dishonest, and I am happy to correct
whatever got miscommunicated there! Thanks G.T.

I believe you are an evil and cynical human being of the worst kind, you hide your bigotted and illogical views behind positive human attributes and I see througg it and it disgusts me.

Dear G.T. What are you TALKING ABOUT???
1. on the prochoice and prolife issue I support BOTH SIDES in defending their beliefs
2. on the progay and antigay, gay marriage and traditional marriage,
i support BOTH sides in defending their beliefs from being banned or discriminated against in public policy
3. same with gun rights and gun control
4. same with immigration issues, and death penalty

I believe all people's beliefs are to be equally respected by law.

So what is so evil about wanting to mediate conflicts so we can form
mutually acceptable solutions?

What evil do you see that you are projecting onto me?
What is giving you this impression?

I believe in consent of the governed NOT COERCION.

So all these conflicts should be resolved so NOBODY is forced
to be under some oppressive policy that violates their rights and beliefs.

What are you talking about G.T.?

I don't believe in imposing beliefs or religious mandates against the will of
people, but believe in consent of the governed as the basis of civil laws and govt,
so how is that evil???

Please explain, thank you! You can cite previous posts if that is where this
evil perception came from. this happens from time to time online, where
somebody gets the exact OPPOSITE impression of what I am really about.

I've had people take my words and interpret them in the total opposite way,
so I can only assume something went terribly wrong here.

I think it started with the gay issue where you thought I said or meant
something that isn't what I believe.

Lots of people misunderstand that issue, so this is not uncommon to
think I mean something else.

Its not worth my time, and ive done it bwfore, already.

Your healthcare solution was retarded.

Your solution here with marijuana is retarded, and the basis FOR your solution could be used for ANY unhealthy thing EVER - which should be your first clue its a bad fucking idea.


But your level of derp is not worth all that work over and over again relentlessly.

 

[G.T.]

Ill show you something, emily - watch.

Try and summarize your gay marriage "solution" in one short, non tedious paragraph.

Ill explain to you thoroughly why it is asinine, and why you have no place in an in depth discussion on these issues.

I will deliver. I promise.

 

[MikeK]

The ultimate in irony is the president visiting (fellow?) drug addicts at a federal prison and calling for lighter sentences for drug addicts at almost the exact moment a drug addict is murdering U.S. Marines on U.S. soil a couple of days after a (non-violent?) drug kingpin escapes from a Mexican prison Don't count on the liberal media to note the irony or the reluctance of the president to lower the Flags in the U.S. capital until forced into it by political pressure after he made his point of insulting the Military once more..

What drugs was Abdulazeez addicted to? And how do you know this?

 

[emilynghiem]

Nor do I get how we are supposed to work toward accountability and responsibility for "universal health care" costs, while at the same time "experimenting" with legalization! How are states supposed to monitor the effects of legislation when these are at cross purposes. Why invite more drug use, and then expect the public taxpayer to pay costs of health care, medical treatment, and therapy?

Because, dumbass, making "negative health effects" the standard for keeping something illegal means we have to illegalize 100's of things before we even IMAGINE marijuana should be illegal for this reason.


Its a retarded and impossible standard. Try thinking past your tripe and the truth may molly whop you, some day.

Dear G.T.
1. First of all WHERE did I say anything dishonest? What are you talking about?
2. Secondly I actually support decriminalization. I believe in setting up some other level of law
besides just civil or criminal, that can handle policing abuses and addictions without criminalizing
and penalizing people.

So you are jumping to conclusions and assuming things.

This is a very deep discussion, and you cannot possibly read my mind and know
all the background and the future solutions I propose to address this ethically
where it is entirely by people's consent how laws are to be applied and enforced,
and there is neither criminalization nor legalization forced on people, but there is CONSENSUS on policy.

Please explain where I said anything dishonest, and I am happy to correct
whatever got miscommunicated there! Thanks G.T.

The programs they are implementing now are better than what they used in the past to treat addictions.....They are learning that the user is not a lost soul that can't be saved and each person has a different method for dealing with the abuse...Education and killing the stigma is part of the program...

Still, if we know that certain substances have a risk of abuse or addiction,
doesn't it make sense to make that the target of policy?

For example, instead of civil or criminal violations, adding the option of a health and safety code
where using drugs or alcohol to enable or further addiction or abuse is policed. And people agree
and sign in advance to go through mediation and counseling if any complaints are issued about
excessive drug use, also relationship abuse. If the problem is when it becomes ABUSIVE, why not address that instead of trying to pretend that abuse or addiction are not a major risk.

Like junkfood? Soda?

Or hadnt ya thought this all the way through yet?

Didnt think so.


Like i said, your asinine bigotry against weed is crossing paths with your obsessive "lets be fair (but lean towards my view tee hee) bullshit and you forgot there are 100s of perfectly LEGAL and unregulated things with FAR WORSE health effects than marijuana.

The cognitive dissonance is inherent dishonesty.

Dear G.T.
I am against ANY form of promoting abuse or addiction, not just marijuana.

I just happen to notice that millions of dollars are spent research marijuana
but not researching spiritual healing that is much more effective.

So there is a strange bias going on.
I have no problem with medical marijuana used for things it is best for.
But if millions are going to be invested in that,
why not match dollar for dollar and research spiritual healing
that can cure a wider range of diseases and conditions?

For the drunk driving issue, which is huge in Harris County where I live,
I believe in pushing for early intervention and also restitution for
any such abuses that lead to financial, social and physical damages.

ANY type of abuse that causes damage shouldn't be charged
to the taxpayers or the victims, but there should be accountability
to the people ultimately responsible.

We just happen to be discussing the biases with marijuana debates,
but G.T.
1. I have made it more than clear that I apply the same concepts of
Restorative Justice to ALL issues of abuse, not just drugs,
but especially relationship abuse

2. I HAVE POINTED OUT, and even credited DRIFTER for help with this,
that I do have a bias against drug users and I have to compensate for that
by making sure I don't make proponents feel left out of the policy making process.

I believe in consensus on policies and want to include all views.

But too many times I find people reject spiritual healing
and then wonder why their arguments are rejected about medical marijuana.

Drifter happened to be open to spiritual healing research.
Other people are not so evenly keeled and fair.

I am open to both research on marijuana for its best uses
and to spiritual healing which I find has broader applications benefits and more lasting implications.

But can't find many people open to both!!!

Thanks for explaining G.T.
Please don't assume or confuse my arguments and approaches to solutions
are like other people's, because they are definitely different.

I believe in inclusion and consensus based on even the most extreme opposing views
coming to a resolution and agreement.

There is a model used in math of getting the upper bound of values
and the lower limit on values to merge, and it "sandwiches" everything in between the two extremes
also to converge to the same point. So I believe in bringing opposites together,
and where we resolve and agree on issues, we build a most sustainable ethical policy
that includes and represents all views from top to bottom, left to right, one extreme of the spectrum to the other.

Nobody else I know believe in embracing all that diversity in one globally inclusive
democratic process, and expecting to reach a consensual solution, but I do!

 

[emilynghiem]

Ill show you something, emily - watch.

Try and summarize your gay marriage "solution" in one short, non tedious paragraph.

Ill explain to you thoroughly why it is asinine, and why you have no place in an in depth discussion on these issues.

I will deliver. I promise.

Okay
1. If people in a state AGREE to a marriage policy, and how to write it neutrally
where all people and beliefs are included respected and represented equally
then the state can endorse such an agreed policy.

2. If they CAN'T agree how to conduct or manage marriage through the state
without people's beliefs getting entangled, then I recommend they SEPARATE
by party. This would also resolve similar issues with diverging beliefs about
health care, by allowing people to fund their own solution and quit dictating terms
they don't all agree with or believe in.

3. I believe this will solve the longstanding issue of Constitutionalists
who believe that social programming is better managed outside federal govt,
and localized where there is accountability and representation more directly with
the constituents affected by policies, such as health care and marriage that affect
people personally. For personal issues and beliefs, it is never recommended for the federal govt to mandate one policy for all people which risks violating the First Amendment against establishing a religious bias through law.

To represent and protect diverse beliefs and interests, it is better to mediate and resolve conflicts, to form solutions that ACCOMMODATE the different people and their beliefs equally.

Any experienced mediator, especially with sensitive conflicts, KNOWS that the most successful mediations allow the PEOPLE to form their own solutions themselves, and to AVOID the facilitator INJECTING or imposing a decision for them which tends to derail the entire process.

 

[G.T.]

Because, dumbass, making "negative health effects" the standard for keeping something illegal means we have to illegalize 100's of things before we even IMAGINE marijuana should be illegal for this reason.


Its a retarded and impossible standard. Try thinking past your tripe and the truth may molly whop you, some day.

Dear G.T.
1. First of all WHERE did I say anything dishonest? What are you talking about?
2. Secondly I actually support decriminalization. I believe in setting up some other level of law
besides just civil or criminal, that can handle policing abuses and addictions without criminalizing
and penalizing people.

So you are jumping to conclusions and assuming things.

This is a very deep discussion, and you cannot possibly read my mind and know
all the background and the future solutions I propose to address this ethically
where it is entirely by people's consent how laws are to be applied and enforced,
and there is neither criminalization nor legalization forced on people, but there is CONSENSUS on policy.

Please explain where I said anything dishonest, and I am happy to correct
whatever got miscommunicated there! Thanks G.T.

The programs they are implementing now are better than what they used in the past to treat addictions.....They are learning that the user is not a lost soul that can't be saved and each person has a different method for dealing with the abuse...Education and killing the stigma is part of the program...

Still, if we know that certain substances have a risk of abuse or addiction,
doesn't it make sense to make that the target of policy?

For example, instead of civil or criminal violations, adding the option of a health and safety code
where using drugs or alcohol to enable or further addiction or abuse is policed. And people agree
and sign in advance to go through mediation and counseling if any complaints are issued about
excessive drug use, also relationship abuse. If the problem is when it becomes ABUSIVE, why not address that instead of trying to pretend that abuse or addiction are not a major risk.

Like junkfood? Soda?

Or hadnt ya thought this all the way through yet?

Didnt think so.


Like i said, your asinine bigotry against weed is crossing paths with your obsessive "lets be fair (but lean towards my view tee hee) bullshit and you forgot there are 100s of perfectly LEGAL and unregulated things with FAR WORSE health effects than marijuana.

The cognitive dissonance is inherent dishonesty.

Dear G.T.
I am against ANY form of promoting abuse or addiction, not just marijuana.

I just happen to notice that millions of dollars are spent research marijuana
but not researching spiritual healing that is much more effective.

So there is a strange bias going on.
I have no problem with medical marijuana used for things it is best for.
But if millions are going to be invested in that,
why not match dollar for dollar and research spiritual healing
that can cure a wider range of diseases and conditions?

For the drunk driving issue, which is huge in Harris County where I live,
I believe in pushing for early intervention and also restitution for
any such abuses that lead to financial, social and physical damages.

ANY type of abuse that causes damage shouldn't be charged
to the taxpayers or the victims, but there should be accountability
to the people ultimately responsible.

We just happen to be discussing the biases with marijuana debates,
but G.T.
1. I have made it more than clear that I apply the same concepts of
Restorative Justice to ALL issues of abuse, not just drugs,
but especially relationship abuse

2. I HAVE POINTED OUT, and even credited DRIFTER for help with this,
that I do have a bias against drug users and I have to compensate for that
by making sure I don't make proponents feel left out of the policy making process.

I believe in consensus on policies and want to include all views.

But too many times I find people reject spiritual healing
and then wonder why their arguments are rejected about medical marijuana.

Drifter happened to be open to spiritual healing research.
Other people are not so evenly keeled and fair.

I am open to both research on marijuana for its best uses
and to spiritual healing which I find has broader applications benefits and more lasting implications.

But can't find many people open to both!!!

Thanks for explaining G.T.
Please don't assume or confuse my arguments and approaches to solutions
are like other people's, because they are definitely different.

I believe in inclusion and consensus based on even the most extreme opposing views
coming to a resolution and agreement.

There is a model used in math of getting the upper bound of values
and the lower limit on values to merge, and it "sandwiches" everything in between the two extremes
also to converge to the same point. So I believe in bringing opposites together,
and where we resolve and agree on issues, we build a most sustainable ethical policy
that includes and represents all views from top to bottom, left to right, one extreme of the spectrum to the other.

Nobody else I know believe in embracing all that diversity in one globally inclusive
democratic process, and expecting to reach a consensual solution, but I do!

There are zero peer reviewed scientific journals proving "spiritual healing."

We dont use tax dollars for fantasy. If it was real and not coincedental, it would face up to scrutiny and pass, amongst the entire scientific community.

Your consensus crusade is as dumb as that.

Should "serial killers" have a say in "serial killer" sentencing policy?

Why not? What about everyone getting to "win?"


It makes no sense.

 

[G.T.]

Ill show you something, emily - watch.

Try and summarize your gay marriage "solution" in one short, non tedious paragraph.

Ill explain to you thoroughly why it is asinine, and why you have no place in an in depth discussion on these issues.

I will deliver. I promise.

Okay
1. If people in a state AGREE to a marriage policy, and how to write it neutrally
where all people and beliefs are included respected and represented equally
then the state can endorse such an agreed policy.

2. If they CAN'T agree how to conduct or manage marriage through the state
without people's beliefs getting entangled, then I recommend they SEPARATE
by party. This would also resolve similar issues with diverging beliefs about
health care, by allowing people to fund their own solution and quit dictating terms
they don't all agree with or believe in.

#1 doesnt work because there are more than 2 views, and if the state endorse "unlimited" views its the same as endorsing NONE. and if they dont endorse unlimited views, then you fairy tale everyone gets a say bullshit snt realized.


Solution #2 i already destroyed BEFORE, dumb dumb


We pay, AS A POLICY, for people who have no coverage (OPT OUTS), but GET SICK.

The ONLY way to solve that, is LET THEM DIE AND DONT OFFER CARE SINCE THEY HAVE NO COVERAGE -OR- make everyone opt in to mitigate the cost.

That annihilates your #2. Totally destroys it. And i did that before, and you ignored it and or typed 42 substanceless paragraphs that contained ZERO logic therein.


Also, the "seperate by party" thing is already what has occurred.

Gay married couples are one party.
Straight married couples are another.

Both are legal, thus have an equal voice in marriaGe and are LEGALLY represented.

So again, #2 destroyed.

 

[G.T.]

Emily is evil because she doesnt care if its right or wrong to put marriage rights up for a "local" popular vote.

She feels its only fair that people who want gay marriage illegal are represented by law....

Totally ignoring the fact that thats legalized BIGOTRY, and that every sexual orientation having a right to marry is TRUE equal representation under the law.....not a sectioned off "its illegal in some places" bigotted system where it allows for the pretend notion that someone else's freedom to marry effects YOURS so you should have the RIGHT to make it ILLEGAL/BAN them from doing so, via "local" vote......and thats ok with her despite that its morally wrong.

Morals dont matter in this faux consensus land. Only equal voices, even if those voices want slavery.

Immoral. Evil. Disgusting.

Consensus does not and never can govern right and wrong. Emily is too daft to get that, because she is inherently dishonest in her approach.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are zero peer reviewed scientific journals proving "spiritual healing."

^ False. Dr. Francis MacNutt worked with a medical team to conduct a research study on Rheumatoid Arthritis that was published. The resulting conclusions was that HIS program worked, the way HIS team conducted the spiritual healing and therapy, but that doesn't mean it is replicable with other people and groups.

Thus, like proving the existence of God, you'd have to study and prove
EVERY instance leads to spiritual healing or reconciliation in God in order to "prove"
such a pattern repeats.

G.T. I AGREE with that.
I believe in proving a "model follows a pattern" and then just like the theory of gravity or anything
else, it is only by replicating results of applying this model
that this becomes accepted as natural and normal.
Because the patterns of the recovery process are predictable and follow observable stages.

We dont use tax dollars for fantasy. If it was real and not coincedental, it would face up to scrutiny and pass, amongst the entire scientific community.

Your consensus crusade is as dumb as that.

Dear G.T. I think you could be confusing "false faith healing" which is fraudulent and fake
with TRUE "spiritual healing" that is natural and works with science and medicine.

There ARE studies that show a correlation with forgiveness/faith and faster recovery/better health
vs. unforgiveness/resentment and lower success with overcoming diseases or even hardships in life.

Spiritual healing is based on forgiveness removing blocks
so that the mind, body, and relations can heal faster. it is natural process.
Cause and effect. If negative rejection or division BLOCKS healing and
reconciliation, this prolongs the problems and the suffering of negative symptoms.
If people make positive choices to seek healing forgiveness and correction
then this CORRELATES with faster or better results in healing from either disease or
even personal setbacks in life. There is a book that describes the Victim mentality
versus the Hero mentality and how much faster people recover from setbacks by forgiving
instead of dwelling on resenting and blame.

Should "serial killers" have a say in "serial killer" sentencing policy?

Why not? What about everyone getting to "win?"

It makes no sense.

In order to get their defense paid for I believe
that criminals should be required to provide all information transparently
to solve the case and work through a restitution settlement
where it provides justice to both the victims and the offender.

If someone wants to take the fifth and not admit what they
did, they can still agree to do the restitution to the satisfaction of
the people affected, such as the survivors of the murder victim if that person there to speak for themselves.

So in order to arrive at a workable means of restitution,
yes, definitely the wrongdoer or else the people legally responsible
for letting this person run loose if they knew they were endangering or abusing others,
should be involved in negotiating plans to pay for the damages to the victim(s) and/or society/taxpayers.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ill show you something, emily - watch.

Try and summarize your gay marriage "solution" in one short, non tedious paragraph.

Ill explain to you thoroughly why it is asinine, and why you have no place in an in depth discussion on these issues.

I will deliver. I promise.

Okay
1. If people in a state AGREE to a marriage policy, and how to write it neutrally
where all people and beliefs are included respected and represented equally
then the state can endorse such an agreed policy.

2. If they CAN'T agree how to conduct or manage marriage through the state
without people's beliefs getting entangled, then I recommend they SEPARATE
by party. This would also resolve similar issues with diverging beliefs about
health care, by allowing people to fund their own solution and quit dictating terms
they don't all agree with or believe in.

#1 doesnt work because there are more than 2 views, and if the state endorse "unlimited" views its the same as endorsing NONE. and if they dont endorse unlimited views, then you fairy tale everyone gets a say bullshit snt realized.


Solution #2 i already destroyed BEFORE, dumb dumb


We pay, AS A POLICY, for people who have no coverage (OPT OUTS), but GET SICK.

The ONLY way to solve that, is LET THEM DIE AND DONT OFFER CARE SINCE THEY HAVE NO COVERAGE -OR- make everyone opt in to mitigate the cost.

That annihilates your #2. Totally destroys it. And i did that before, and you ignored it and or typed 42 substanceless paragraphs that contained ZERO logic therein.


Also, the "seperate by party" thing is already what has occurred.

Gay married couples are one party.
Straight married couples are another.

Both are legal, thus have an equal voice in marriaGe and are LEGALLY represented.

So again, #2 destroyed.

Hi G.T. and that's why the state doesn't go around
endorsing religions, because there are too many denominations
and different beliefs. So let people govern their own groups.

The govt was NEVER designed to micromanage people's beliefs.
it is unconstitutional by the First Amendment
and just plain against natural laws to try to control every single decision
on personal matters.

That's why govt should stick to COLLECTIVE policies that
apply to everyone. And where it no longer applies globally,
then revert to the States or to the People to work out on a local democratized level.

In schools, the principals hire their own teachers.
In cities, the people vote for their reps using different rules
for different cities.
It is not going to be all the same,
because on that level there is diversity in the needs
representation, interests and priorities of the LOCAL citizens.

So the more personal you get, it helps to have more freedom
to work out individualized policies that match the dynamics of that group.

Ideally the higher levels of govt should be for GENERAL issues,
and delegate the specific choices and details to LOCAL levels to work out.

Only if a conflict cannot be resolved is the govt supposed to step in
and prevent rights from being violated.

In the recent cases of health care mandates and now gay marriage,
govt should not be abused to MAKE decisions for people or states.
Same with the controversial issue over Terri Schiavo where there
was a conflict of interest with her "ex" husband but the state went
with his opinion although there was no proof in writing and there
were more people in the family in favor of keeping her alive.
since nothing was in writing, the decision was FAITH based,
so it should be left to the family and not up to the court to
decide a FAITH based issue. Now we have the same
pattern of deciding faith-based issues applied to other conflicts,
instead of ordering the parties to resolve their own issues,
and either come up with consensual policy or agree to separate.

 

[G.T.]

Ill show you something, emily - watch.

Try and summarize your gay marriage "solution" in one short, non tedious paragraph.

Ill explain to you thoroughly why it is asinine, and why you have no place in an in depth discussion on these issues.

I will deliver. I promise.

Okay
1. If people in a state AGREE to a marriage policy, and how to write it neutrally
where all people and beliefs are included respected and represented equally
then the state can endorse such an agreed policy.

2. If they CAN'T agree how to conduct or manage marriage through the state
without people's beliefs getting entangled, then I recommend they SEPARATE
by party. This would also resolve similar issues with diverging beliefs about
health care, by allowing people to fund their own solution and quit dictating terms
they don't all agree with or believe in.

#1 doesnt work because there are more than 2 views, and if the state endorse "unlimited" views its the same as endorsing NONE. and if they dont endorse unlimited views, then you fairy tale everyone gets a say bullshit snt realized.


Solution #2 i already destroyed BEFORE, dumb dumb


We pay, AS A POLICY, for people who have no coverage (OPT OUTS), but GET SICK.

The ONLY way to solve that, is LET THEM DIE AND DONT OFFER CARE SINCE THEY HAVE NO COVERAGE -OR- make everyone opt in to mitigate the cost.

That annihilates your #2. Totally destroys it. And i did that before, and you ignored it and or typed 42 substanceless paragraphs that contained ZERO logic therein.


Also, the "seperate by party" thing is already what has occurred.

Gay married couples are one party.
Straight married couples are another.

Both are legal, thus have an equal voice in marriaGe and are LEGALLY represented.

So again, #2 destroyed.

Hi G.T. and that's why the state doesn't go around
endorsing religions, because there are too many denominations
and different beliefs. So let people govern their own groups.

The govt was NEVER designed to micromanage people's beliefs.
it is unconstitutional by the First Amendment
and just plain against natural laws to try to control every single decision
on personal matters.

That's why govt should stick to COLLECTIVE policies that
apply to everyone. And where it no longer applies globally,
then revert to the States or to the People to work out on a local democratized level.

In schools, the principals hire their own teachers.
In cities, the people vote for their reps using different rules
for different cities.
It is not going to be all the same,
because on that level there is diversity in the needs
representation, interests and priorities of the LOCAL citizens.

So the more personal you get, it helps to have more freedom
to work out individualized policies that match the dynamics of that group.

Ideally the higher levels of govt should be for GENERAL issues,
and delegate the specific choices and details to LOCAL levels to work out.

Only if a conflict cannot be resolved is the govt supposed to step in
and prevent rights from being violated.

In the recent cases of health care mandates and now gay marriage,
govt should not be abused to MAKE decisions for people or states.
Same with the controversial issue over Terri Schiavo where there
was a conflict of interest with her "ex" husband but the state went
with his opinion although there was no proof in writing and there
were more people in the family in favor of keeping her alive.
since nothing was in writing, the decision was FAITH based,
so it should be left to the family and not up to the court to
decide a FAITH based issue. Now we have the same
pattern of deciding faith-based issues applied to other conflicts,
instead of ordering the parties to resolve their own issues,
and either come up with consensual policy or agree to separate.

It doesnt matter how local or small you want to try and allow legalize bigotry against gays...

Like i told you before. Its is evil to allow banning gay marriage.

You wanting to allow said banning at local levels is disgusting. You are a shameful pig.

 

[Moonglow]

I am still amazed that the religion of Christianity is a message of loving each other, not in a sexual whey, but the care and concern for humans. It is not only important who we love, but how we love each other.....By pushing ghey folks aside, you do not show your love, you show your hate, which is not in the doctrine of Christianity....and you lose a potential convert or follower....

 

[MikeK]

I did illegal drugs for many, many years and suffered no health problems and payed for it all by my own labor....As has millions others...

Many, many millions of others.