Hi Wingnut,
<font color=blue>I don't recall robberies and killing attributed to alcoholics back during prohibition</font color=blue>
I believe I attributed the killings to those fighting over the control of the illegal-substance market, NOT the users. The prohibition gangsters were(in my opinion) just "drug-lords" of a different stripe.
Even if you believe, as you seem to imply [ it(alcohol) was legal everywhere else, so it should have been legal here], you must concede that it WAS illegal here, and this is the fact that made the market and the profits worth fighting and killing over, to some.
Re my own thoughts on this, ...my original post/upset had to do with the excesses; the murder (or do you accept the more innocuous terms?) of the innocent plane occupants(just ONE example), the increasing police powers "because the police have to GET these bad guys", Yes, the waste of money (Does this NOT bother you? Notice I said "waste", not "use".) and the constantly written-about corruption and lack of REAL intent to actually STOP the drug flow, reported by insiders who "have been there".
I don't suggest doing "NOTHING" because this is not working, I suggest trying SOMETHING ELSE, that MAY work better! "Something else" may NOT work better, of course, but I think it might be worth a try.
This is not the helpless "throwing-up-of-the-hands" often attributed to anyone with different ideas by the "hard-liners". It is simply a desire to get off of a horse that is dead.
Saying a thing is "bad", and making it illegal, obviously will not persuade an unconvinced segment of the populace to stop. And someone will always fill the marketplace "need", no matter how much money "we" spend trying (or pretending to try) to prevent it. (And regardless of how many personal freedoms, rights-to-privacy, etc., we allow ourselves to be stripped-of, to make the "enforcers" job easier.)
If someone needs a "crusade", admitting the hypocrisy of (and changing) our tolerant attitude towards tobacco and alchohol would save many more people than are harmed by drugs. (This is satistically demonstrated time-and-again, but the drug-demon hunters conveniently ignore it,...also time-and-again!)
[After that I suppose I need to state again that I don't use, and do oppose-the-use-of drugs, of any kind, including tobacco. Occasional light use of alcohol is apparantly a disputed "evil" amongst health-authorities, so I'll withold my vote on that.]
Regarding your reference to speeders (you've opened a can of my favorite worms, with this one);
You may have heard me say this before, but bear with me,... I've responded to over 10,000 emergencies of one type or another, over the years, many of them traffic accidents. Please allow me to make an observation that is self-evident to anyone actually willing to see it.
Deaths on the highway are usually caused by stupidity(I include outright recklessness here), inattention, equipment failure, drunkeness, falling asleep, etc. And of course, if any of these things occur while the vehicle is traveling at a higher rate of speed, more damage will result.
But, (BUT!) Speed, itself, does not kill, no matter what the slogans say.
Prove it to yourself: sit alongside I-5, between Seattle and Portland. every minute of every hour of every day, THOUSANDS of cars pass by at 75-85 mph or more! (Don't be picky, ...I know that "thousands" don't pass "every minute". You know what I mean!) Go back the next day, ...and the next, etc. you will see the same thing each time.
Interesting that they are not all dead, huh? In fact the statistical percentage of them that become dead, given the immense numbers of speeders, is insignificant.
Now if someone wants to jump-up from their chair and remind me that the loss of even one life is NOT insignificant, I'll grant that.
But the harsh reality is that the roads are there to facilitate travel, commerce, etc. And I, for one am not willing to drive 5 miles-per-hour, in order to guarantee that NO-ONE will ever be killed on the highway.
And you know what? ...I don't think most other people are either. (besides, it wouldn't work, ...someone would STILL find a stupid way to get themselves or someone else killed)
So I guess it is just a matter of where we each choose to draw the line.
Some choose to draw it wherever the little sign beside the road SAYS to draw it, with little thought to whether-or-not it really SHOULD be saying what it does. And some of those take great pride and often a little smug satisfaction from the fact that they are "obeying the law"., often in the left-lane, regardless of how many people are piled-up behind them.(Isn't that special!)
Many others PROVE that it is safe to travel faster, by safely DOING IT day-after-day, ...by the thousands. And spend many,many fewer hours-of-their-lives simply getting from here to there. But hey they're 'lawbreakers" dontchaknow. Yeah, and they're also a source of considerable ticket-income to various governments as long as it isn't made legal!
Incidentally, our (Or.) speed limit is 65. in Wa. it is 70. In other states it is higher. Since those other states' drivers aren't all dead, I guess we have to assume that we Oregonians are just not to be trusted at speeds that other people can handle quite well. (Or is it that their authorities just don't care as much as ours, about their citizen's safety? yeah, that must be it!)
We certainly need some laws, but common sense doesn't have to be sacrificed to political-correctness (NASTY concept) because someone wheels a paraplegic out in a wheelchair at the council/senate/whatever meeting, where raising the speed-limit is being discussed (as it is now, here in Oregon).
The fear that keeps people from acknowledging simple truths is that they will be called "uncaring" for doing so.I won't be surprised to hear it myself, for writing this.
I'm more interested in sensible laws than I am the opinions of those who hope that SOMEHOW, SOMEONE can make the world a totally risk-free place for them.
I'd have a lot more respect for a patrolman who took some of my money, or my right to drive, because I was doing something that could be plainly shown to be dangerous, than one who was empowered to do so simply because I wasn't doing "what the sign said".
Well, that was a longer "drive" than I intended.
So I'll close with a thought about "the baby";
Baby's don't come with guarantees. They will grow up to be themselves. probably not like you. ...or like me. And maybe even not anything like what we might think they should be.
And they may make different choices, and walk paths we never would venture-on.
As long as they don't actually harm you or I in the process, more power to them.
I want to live in a country where such freedom is not just tolerated, but appreciated.
We'll either put up with each other's differences, or we'll all be the same (Ugh!).
Larry
