Super duper hype fast FET driver?

[JW]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:05:17 -0700 Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
in Message id: <9bi1e1FokcU2@mid.individual.net>:

JW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:02:26 -0700 Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
in Message id: <9bfqulFgnsU1@mid.individual.net>:

[...]

How does that justify killing the unborn?

What if she was raped?


That is one of those tough cases. Very rare but happens. If she is a
religious woman she'd probably carry it out and either raise it herself
or adopt it out. The unborn isn't guilty fot it. Rape also happens a lot
in "consentual" relationships, more than it seems.

OK. Just out of curiosity, how about if the baby is/will be severely
deformed? Mind you, I'm not judging you on your beliefs...

 

[Joerg]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

[...]

And _you_ are bothered by a few stoners sticking it up your
nose that they get to smoke some pot in front of you without
getting arrested?

I am bothered by two things:

a. By the people I have seen being wasted by drugs while linving in the
Netherlands. The ones that died weren't even the worst off, though their
siblings and parents sure were. The ones that only almost died grieve me
the most. Many of them had to essentially go on living almost as a
vegetable for another 40-50 years.

I'd still like to emphasize that for some odd reason you ended up in a
place with a lot of drug abuse. No offense taken but I really don't
recognize the NL in the picture you are painting. OTOH it might be
that more people where experimenting with chemical drugs in the early
80's than now.

Yes, I gave the Netherlands of the 80's as an example because that
showed rather clearly where "free" narcotics policies lead to. I have
heard from friends there that they since have tightened up laws and
enforcement. When I was young lots of people from Germany boarded trains
on weekends, to Amsterdam, to get stoned. AFAIK that is not much the
case anymore.

To put things into a better perspective: Alcohol is a much bigger
problem than other drugs. It is easier to get rid of a heroin
addiction than an alcohol addiction. The reason it is less visible is
because alcoholic beverages can be bought everywhere and no-one will
ask questions.

And there are also costs involved:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/The5MostExpensiveAddictions.aspx

Take a closer look: Alcohol is freely accessible in the US. Cost given
is $166B. Drugs are prohibited and can only be used clandestinely in the
US yet contribute a whopping $110B. That tells the story quite clearly,
doesn't it?

Thus the cost per addicted user is much higher with drugs. If we'd allow
unfettered access we'd drown in health care costs for addicts. But to me
it's not just the cost. Alkohol is a slow addiction. People will notice,
the person becomes tired all the time, makes mistakes at work, gets
caught by police whiled driving, becomes belligerent, or you just notice
"Man, it's not even 8:00pm and he's on his third beer already". Drugs,
different thing. On Wednesday a person looks normal, just like every
day. On Sunday the policeman with a sad face knocks at the door, a mom
opens and then breaks down in tears. Seen it :-(

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

JW wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:05:17 -0700 Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
in Message id: <9bi1e1FokcU2@mid.individual.net>:

JW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:02:26 -0700 Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
in Message id: <9bfqulFgnsU1@mid.individual.net>:

[...]

How does that justify killing the unborn?
What if she was raped?

That is one of those tough cases. Very rare but happens. If she is a
religious woman she'd probably carry it out and either raise it herself
or adopt it out. The unborn isn't guilty fot it. Rape also happens a lot
in "consentual" relationships, more than it seems.

OK. Just out of curiosity, how about if the baby is/will be severely
deformed? Mind you, I'm not judging you on your beliefs...

It would not be up to us to kill it then. Think about it: If it was "ok"
to kill it then, where will the line be drawn? Will the line be moved
some day? Will they start killing babies with Down syndrome? What if
they can detect autism in a fetus some day, will they kill that as well?
Scary.

I have met several people with severe deformities, autisms and quite
hardcore Down syndrome who were rather loving folks to be around.
Including one miracle guy, he lived well past 60 which was thought to be
impossible with down syndrome. It's been years now but we still miss him.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John S]

On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:10:10 -0500, John S <sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Some people have addictive personalities, and some other people are in
the business of inventing and selling unnatural, irresistible
substances.

Lots of industries are based around over-stimulating our natural
appetites, things that evolved 100K years ago: fast cars, drugs, porn,
junk food, video games, casino gambling, cigarettes, payday loans,
television, things like that.

John

 

[John S]

On 8/24/2011 2:29 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:10:10 -0500, John S<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Some people have addictive personalities, and some other people are in
the business of inventing and selling unnatural, irresistible
substances.

If they are truly irresistible, why are you not an addict?

Lots of industries are based around over-stimulating our natural
appetites, things that evolved 100K years ago: fast cars, drugs, porn,
junk food, video games, casino gambling, cigarettes, payday loans,
television, things like that.

John

It is always a choice.

 

[Joerg]

John S wrote:

On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John S]

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?


Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

 

[Joerg]

John S wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from
drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?


Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.


If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

You do not believe that people have different levels of will power?

Regarding the drug problems, that has nothing to do with what I believe.
I have lived in both kinds of countries for many years. Living there
gives you a much better insight than any biased or even unbiased media
pieces.

Have you lived overseas and see for yourself?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:45:56 -0500, John S <sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 2:29 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:10:10 -0500, John S<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Some people have addictive personalities, and some other people are in
the business of inventing and selling unnatural, irresistible
substances.

If they are truly irresistible, why are you not an addict?

Because I was born with an anti-addictive personality. I get bored
with things faster than I become addicted to them. And because I
*think* about what I'm doing and make decisions. Other people aren't
so lucky.

Lots of industries are based around over-stimulating our natural
appetites, things that evolved 100K years ago: fast cars, drugs, porn,
junk food, video games, casino gambling, cigarettes, payday loans,
television, things like that.

John

It is always a choice.

For some people, it's a lot harder. Some people get addicted as kids,
before they understand the consequences. That's why we need to keep
busting the exploiters.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?


Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:09:33 -0500, John S <sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?


Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.


If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

Not at all. It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

John

 

[Nico Coesel]

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

[...]

And _you_ are bothered by a few stoners sticking it up your
nose that they get to smoke some pot in front of you without
getting arrested?

I am bothered by two things:

a. By the people I have seen being wasted by drugs while linving in the
Netherlands. The ones that died weren't even the worst off, though their
siblings and parents sure were. The ones that only almost died grieve me
the most. Many of them had to essentially go on living almost as a
vegetable for another 40-50 years.

I'd still like to emphasize that for some odd reason you ended up in a
place with a lot of drug abuse. No offense taken but I really don't
recognize the NL in the picture you are painting. OTOH it might be
that more people where experimenting with chemical drugs in the early
80's than now.


Yes, I gave the Netherlands of the 80's as an example because that
showed rather clearly where "free" narcotics policies lead to. I have

In the 80's all drugs where illegal and they still are. Only growing
and possessing small amounts of pot is allowed since a few years.
Coffeeshops are a means to keep the organized crime out but they are
in the gray zone between legal and illegal.

heard from friends there that they since have tightened up laws and
enforcement. When I was young lots of people from Germany boarded trains
on weekends, to Amsterdam, to get stoned. AFAIK that is not much the
case anymore.

It -more or less- still is, but not for long. Coffeeshops are no
longer allowed to serve tourists.

To put things into a better perspective: Alcohol is a much bigger
problem than other drugs. It is easier to get rid of a heroin
addiction than an alcohol addiction. The reason it is less visible is
because alcoholic beverages can be bought everywhere and no-one will
ask questions.

And there are also costs involved:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/The5MostExpensiveAddictions.aspx


Take a closer look: Alcohol is freely accessible in the US. Cost given
is $166B. Drugs are prohibited and can only be used clandestinely in the
US yet contribute a whopping $110B. That tells the story quite clearly,
doesn't it?
Thus the cost per addicted user is much higher with drugs. If we'd allow

You assume there are more alcohol addicts than drug addicts. Without
numbers to compare you really can't tell. For example: crystal meth
-which is extremely addictive- can be procuded from household
chemicals. The word is that whole neighbourhoods in the US are
addicted to this stuff which they 'cook' in their own homes. From the
info on Wikipedia it seems making crystal meth is easier than brewing
your own beer.

unfettered access we'd drown in health care costs for addicts. But to me
it's not just the cost. Alkohol is a slow addiction. People will notice,
the person becomes tired all the time, makes mistakes at work, gets

You are missing my point: alcohol shouldn't be available so easy. In
NL there is strict enforcement of laws to prevent abuse of alcohol
(especially by teenagers). Interestingly NL has a relatively low
amount of alcohol addicts in comparison to other countries with a
'western livestyle'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[John S]

On 8/24/2011 3:58 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:45:56 -0500, John S<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 2:29 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:10:10 -0500, John S<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Some people have addictive personalities, and some other people are in
the business of inventing and selling unnatural, irresistible
substances.

If they are truly irresistible, why are you not an addict?

Because I was born with an anti-addictive personality.

How do you know that? You have proof of your assertion?

I get bored

with things faster than I become addicted to them. And because I
*think* about what I'm doing and make decisions. Other people aren't
so lucky.

Really? So I guess one must simply *think* to either avoid or succumb to
drugs. Yes?

Lots of industries are based around over-stimulating our natural
appetites, things that evolved 100K years ago: fast cars, drugs, porn,
junk food, video games, casino gambling, cigarettes, payday loans,
television, things like that.

John

It is always a choice.

Even kids have a choice. But they must be guided by their
parents/caretakers. They cannot be dumped into a school or whatever and
forgotten.

I had respect for you John, but now I see that you don't want to face
reality.

 

[John S]

On 8/24/2011 4:00 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:52 -0700, Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John S wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?


Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

John

What happened to the "Just Say NO" campaign?

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

John Larkin wrote:

It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution. I would be more concerned about protection against
professional champions for the public good.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:04:16 -0500, John S <sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:58 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:45:56 -0500, John S<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 2:29 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:10:10 -0500, John S<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/23/2011 9:38 AM, Joerg wrote:

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?


The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.


I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Some people have addictive personalities, and some other people are in
the business of inventing and selling unnatural, irresistible
substances.

If they are truly irresistible, why are you not an addict?

Because I was born with an anti-addictive personality.

How do you know that? You have proof of your assertion?

I don't need to prove it to you; how could I?

I have tried a number of drugs and didn't continue. The only one that
I thought was really cool was quaaludes, but I knew they were
addictive so didn't continue.

I get bored
with things faster than I become addicted to them. And because I
*think* about what I'm doing and make decisions. Other people aren't
so lucky.

Really? So I guess one must simply *think* to either avoid or succumb to
drugs. Yes?

Only if ons the intelligence to think clearly about what's going on,
and the will power to do what's logical, in spite of cravings. Some
people can do this, some can't.

Lots of industries are based around over-stimulating our natural
appetites, things that evolved 100K years ago: fast cars, drugs, porn,
junk food, video games, casino gambling, cigarettes, payday loans,
television, things like that.

John

It is always a choice.


Even kids have a choice. But they must be guided by their
parents/caretakers. They cannot be dumped into a school or whatever and
forgotten.

I had respect for you John, but now I see that you don't want to face
reality.

And I don't see why you want to be mean to people who don't have the
strength that we do.

Bust the drug dealers. It's proven that the more expensive alcohol or
cigarettes or drugs are, the less people abuse them.

John

 

[Joerg]

Nico Coesel wrote:

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
[...]

And _you_ are bothered by a few stoners sticking it up your
nose that they get to smoke some pot in front of you without
getting arrested?

I am bothered by two things:

a. By the people I have seen being wasted by drugs while linving in the
Netherlands. The ones that died weren't even the worst off, though their
siblings and parents sure were. The ones that only almost died grieve me
the most. Many of them had to essentially go on living almost as a
vegetable for another 40-50 years.
I'd still like to emphasize that for some odd reason you ended up in a
place with a lot of drug abuse. No offense taken but I really don't
recognize the NL in the picture you are painting. OTOH it might be
that more people where experimenting with chemical drugs in the early
80's than now.

Yes, I gave the Netherlands of the 80's as an example because that
showed rather clearly where "free" narcotics policies lead to. I have

In the 80's all drugs where illegal and they still are. Only growing
and possessing small amounts of pot is allowed since a few years.

Nope. We had a sign in the youth club Spuugh in Vaals (Zuid Limburg) and
it read in English "No hard drugs, otherwise we call the police". What
they called soft drugs was allowed.

Coffeeshops are a means to keep the organized crime out but they are
in the gray zone between legal and illegal.

heard from friends there that they since have tightened up laws and
enforcement. When I was young lots of people from Germany boarded trains
on weekends, to Amsterdam, to get stoned. AFAIK that is not much the
case anymore.

It -more or less- still is, but not for long. Coffeeshops are no
longer allowed to serve tourists.

Yes, that's what I meant with tightening up on drugs. Seems some leson
have finally been learned.

To put things into a better perspective: Alcohol is a much bigger
problem than other drugs. It is easier to get rid of a heroin
addiction than an alcohol addiction. The reason it is less visible is
because alcoholic beverages can be bought everywhere and no-one will
ask questions.

And there are also costs involved:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/The5MostExpensiveAddictions.aspx

Take a closer look: Alcohol is freely accessible in the US. Cost given
is $166B. Drugs are prohibited and can only be used clandestinely in the
US yet contribute a whopping $110B. That tells the story quite clearly,
doesn't it?
Thus the cost per addicted user is much higher with drugs. If we'd allow

You assume there are more alcohol addicts than drug addicts. Without
numbers to compare you really can't tell. For example: crystal meth
-which is extremely addictive- can be procuded from household
chemicals. The word is that whole neighbourhoods in the US are
addicted to this stuff which they 'cook' in their own homes. From the
info on Wikipedia it seems making crystal meth is easier than brewing
your own beer.

There are with absolute certainty several times more _users_ of alcohol
than drugs. Except for maybe 2-3 people everyone else I know regularly
drinks beer or wine. Nobody I know takes drugs. Even if there were some
who wouldn't tell me, it would just be a handful.

unfettered access we'd drown in health care costs for addicts. But to me
it's not just the cost. Alkohol is a slow addiction. People will notice,
the person becomes tired all the time, makes mistakes at work, gets

You are missing my point: alcohol shouldn't be available so easy. In
NL there is strict enforcement of laws to prevent abuse of alcohol
(especially by teenagers). Interestingly NL has a relatively low
amount of alcohol addicts in comparison to other countries with a
'western livestyle'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

So you agree that enforcement works then? That's what I was advocating
all the time. Lack of laws and enforcement is what resulted in all the
problems I saw in your country in the 80's. And I was by far not the
only one who was shocked by it. Now that they start cracking down on
stuff it gets better.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

John S wrote:

On 8/24/2011 3:58 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:45:56 -0500, John S<sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 2:29 PM, John Larkin wrote:

[...]

I get bored
with things faster than I become addicted to them. And because I
*think* about what I'm doing and make decisions. Other people aren't
so lucky.

Really? So I guess one must simply *think* to either avoid or succumb to
drugs. Yes?

Yes.

Lots of industries are based around over-stimulating our natural
appetites, things that evolved 100K years ago: fast cars, drugs, porn,
junk food, video games, casino gambling, cigarettes, payday loans,
television, things like that.

John

It is always a choice.


Even kids have a choice. But they must be guided by their
parents/caretakers. They cannot be dumped into a school or whatever and
forgotten.

Exactamente. Up to a certain age the elders have to do the thinking part
for the kids when it comes to stuff that can be dagerous. Parents shall
not dump the job of educating their kids onto a nanny-state.
Unfortunately many parents no longer think that way. I am very glad mine
did, and I tell them that regularly.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:16:45 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


It's a matter of preventing a great deal of very real
public harm, a matter of protecting the young and the weak against
professional predators.

Weak, irresponsible and stupid don't survive. That is what they call an
evolution.

That's a pretty mean attitude.

John