Thank You,that was a goodie.

I wasn't sure if rebinator was joking, so I allowed that as a possibility (when I said
to ignore the rest if s/he was just being facetious) but s/he got huffy about it, and
off we went.

I'm actually not angry about any of this, I just like a chance to make people think
and practice my rhetorical skills. Thanks all of you for allowing me to do that.

Anyway, I think I've said enough today, and enough is too much. Later y'all

i took rebinator's comment as a joke immediately, because
few russians have the extra rubles needed to eat toxic
quantities of mickyD's fare...

'Preciate your compliment very much. It's easy to be inspired by the high level of
commentary on this board, especially by folks like Kaptinemo, Dan. B. and quite a
few others. We all FEEL strongly about the drug war, but it's good to THINK
strongly about it, too.

Hey lookinside: Well, all my personal observations of sheep and everything I've
ever seen or read about them indicates a distinct lack of reasoning ability. I mean,
would YOU let a shepherd sneak up on you and boink you? :)

Peace

Ben

Sorry for the ongoing nature of this conversation, especially within the context of
this important article. I am far more interested in fighting the counter-drug war
instead of arguing amongst supposed "allies".

The problem of sadistic "treatments" exists everywhere. This particular Russian
example may be shockingly brutal, but only a little more so than our own Rehab
Racket. If you don't believe me, believe someone who has researched this and
fought if for years no, Mr. Arnold Trebach. His impassioned commentary is
contained in the following interview:

http://www.drcnet.org/wol/190.html#arnoldtrebach

It is quite pertinent to this topic.

To New Mexican:

You ask, "What are facts?"

(Random House Dictionary, 2nd Unabridged definition, Fact- Def. 3): A truth know
by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

Statements are not facts. Beliefs are not facts. Assumptions are not facts. A
statement, belief, or assumption that is tested by verifiable and repeatable
methodology is a fact.

Fact: I do not own stock in McDonalds. I would be willing to show you my stock
portfolio to prove this.

My strong belief is that everyone, citizen and corporate entities alike, should be
assumed innocent until proven guilty. No one has proved to me, by use of facts
(as defined above) that McDonalds is guilty of poisoning me or anyone else.

You say: "If MacDonalds does use GMOs in their fries, thats enough for me!"

I ask you, why is that? Can you show me facts that support the idea that
Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful, or that it is an automatic sign of
maliciousness or negligence if a corporation makes use of them? By GMO's, I am
assuming that you mean organisms modified by use of recombinant DNA
techniques? Because farmers have been genetically modifying animals and
plants for millennia by cross-breeding and animal husbandry, and scientists have
been using chemicals, radiation, and direct physical "shotgun" techniques for
decades to induce mutations, which are then culled to find favorable characteristics.
So what exactly constitutes a GMO in your book?

You say: "Prove their safe and not the other way around."

It is impossible to prove a negative. Did you ever take a course in logic? You
can prove that UFO's exist, but no one can prove they don't. You can show that
food is harmful, it is impossible to show that is "safe." At best we can say that
something is "very likely not to be harmful in most circumstances."

You say: "Anyway, you're off on a tangent and why you need to defend
Macdonalds is beyond me, they have enough overpaid lawyers defending their
corrupt influence over 'the children'."

I defend McDonalds (and Microsoft as well) for the reasons I stated above. No
one has proved to me that these corporations are doing wrong, and therefore I
extend them the same presumption of innocence that I would give you. The fact
that McDonalds does a good job of catering to their target market and advertises
to them is not a crime. McDonalds employees do not force children up to the
counter at gunpoint. No devices have been attached to adults' cars to guide them
into McDonalds parking lots. We go there of our own free will, and get what we
want.

You say: "Get a Life! Put your energy into stopping the "drug war" Thanks!"

So should I put my energy into stopping the drug war, or hating Mcdonalds, or
fighting GMO's? You seem to want me to do many things.

All I ask of anyone is to think and be reasonable. If you have the "goods" on
McDonalds, New Mexican, then dish! I'm all ears. As far as I know, they're just a
major fast food chain. I don't eat their food much anymore, but that's just a
personal choice, and I wouldn't force it on anyone else.

I categorically refuse to subscribe to some dogmatic set of beliefs, whether
defined by liberals, conservative, or others. The fact that I oppose the drug war
does not automatically make me anti-capitalist, anti-technology, or pro-regulation.
Quite the contrary, I support the right of McDonalds to put whatever they want in
their food as much as I support the right of all people to put whatever they want
into their own bodies. If I feel uncomfortable with McDonalds ingredients or level
of disclosure about them, then it's up to me to not eat there. If I don't like your
substance use, then it's up to me to go somewhere away from you. If either you
or McDonalds impose yourself on me, do me any physical harm or economic
damage, or take away my constitutional rights in some way, then I have a right to
take you or them to court.

My way of stopping the drug war is to get people to think clearly and for
themselves. People can think, sheep cannot.

Peace

Most everyone who takes the time to comment here,are
good,intelligent people,who are generally on the same side
when it comes to the WoDs.Differences of opinion are a
natural and healthy part of these discussions,but it's easy
to get sidetracked sometimes.I hope Rebinator was not
offended by my attempted mediation.

I mighta been a bit out of line with my first post. I tend to take a very rationalist and
objectivist point of view, and like things to be grounded in fact and empiricism.
I've had my fill of people parroting things they hear through gossip or
questionable media sources, and want everyone to avail themselves of that large
grey organ between their ears. Alas, some people seem merely to use it to
balance their head, and that rankles the scientist in me.

Anyway, I didn't mean to attack rebinator, and I hope he/she is OK with that. I
pride myself on being open-minded, and will read opposing viewpoints on any
subject, even D.E.A. press releases. BELIEVING them, well that's another story
entirely!!

Peace

Articles sometimes sensationalise facts, sometimes the truth is just as devastating as it appears. I believe people would be more prone to comprehending a thing called "humanity" if they had to take the medicine they dish. In other words, if you want to beat someone's addiction out black and blue, you should be obligated to get beaten black and blue and see if you can then turn the other "cheek."

People who want to declare war on everything (as if torment solves social ills) would second think their methodologies if the people who are the victims of such wars actually fought back in the fashion in which they are persecuted...
anti-drug terrorist-typed squads, poisonous pesticides, lies of propoganda, and witch-hunts to blame all the problems of the world on.

Sad and ironic, but one is treated dastardly because of their choice to use drugs (not advocating or stigmatising at this point) as an element of their taking personal responsibility for their choices, but, after all, personal responsibility is not taken into consideration on whether the individual actually commits victim-ful crimes from their choice or not. If not for a blatant double standard, there would be no standard at all.

His response did seem a bit brash,but I like
to cut everyone plenty of slack.

I was not attempting to put your facts on trial, I was trying to ascertain if they were
facts at all. Your unsupported statements are not facts, nor are they convincing to
me. If you want me to agree with your position or at least see your points, you
must explain yourself. Simpling saying that fast food contains brain damaging
chemical does not make it so, although it certainly COULD be true. I don't know,
and you have done nothing to convince me.

Also, I didn't assume that you don't know what you are talking about, I asked
questions. Such as: how do you know these things, and how can I check them for
myself? If I assumed you didn't know, I wouldn't bother to ask you.

Lastly, you seem to miss the entire point of my statement and the supporting
quote. I wanted to check the facts for MYSELF, rather than assuming that you
were right or wrong based on my personal feelings or intuitions. However, the
only thing I have learned, and I'm not sure that it's a hard fact, is that you seem to
be easily offended. My apologies, t'was not my intent.

If you post statements in a public forum, that makes you at least somewhat
answerable for them (unless you're a shout-and-run type, which I consider quite
cowardly.)

So I repeat, got a URL or a study title about fast food to recommend? Or do you
still stand behind that statement?

Brave enough to post my real name,

it has been proven that torture does work...the problem is
that it turns the torturors into monsters...it also turns
the victims into subhuman slaves...

First of all, my facts are not on trial here. And,
furthermore, neither am I. For all you know, I do have
evidence. This is a forum for dissection of articles about
the Drug War. So don't waste your time.

Secondly, I am more than a little bit insulted that you
would assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. Spare
me. This is my day off. I'm not answerable to you.

While I agree with your hope that some punishment awaits sadists like these in the
afterlife, I was less in accord with your fast food remark (unless it was meant
facetiously, in which case ignore all the rest of this.)

"...Certain chemicals in fast food lead to brain damage.
Could the McDonalds invasion be taking its toll on the
hapless Russians not even 11 years after the American
invasion?"

You state this as a certainty. What is the evidence? What convinced you? Do
you have any links to any good studies or experiments on this topic?

We must never fall into the prohibitionist practice of treating weakly supported or
even unsupported allegations as gospel truth, and then acting on that "truth."

to quote Robert Heinlein (as Lazarus Long):

"What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the FACTS? Shun
wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell', avoid
opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of
history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always
into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"

So what are the facts about fast food? I know the facts about drugs and
prohibition, and sadistic creeps like the Russian Rehab Racket. But what about
McDonalds?

The day may yet come,when rotting in jail will be preferable
to going into some slipshod privitized,outsourced treatment
program nightmare......