Previous 11 - 20 Next
Alcohol use also kills brain cells. What is the political point here? Townhall isn't a medical journal, it is devoted to politics. Hence, the name, "Townhall".
In response to:

Whose Side Is God on Now?

kevin837 Wrote: Apr 04, 2014 11:49 PM
Putin is conning Christians. He wants restrictions on abortion, homosexuality, and porn for one simple reason: they interfere with his goal of repopulating Russia, which has a lot of territory but a decline population. However such methods have limited effectiveness. If someone likes gay sex or porn, there is nothing the law can do to change that. Concerning abortion, he isn't outlawing it, but simply putting reasonable restrictions, similar to those in the US. Ultimately we have to face the fact that as technology and economics improve, people will want a more pleasurable life and raising children can interfere with that. Why not allow infertile couples the full range of technological possibilities, including artificial wombs or biological hosts of a similar species. This relieves the human woman of the burden of carrying a child. Many couples want to adopt but are unable, or unwilling to raise a problem child who may have bad genetics.
In response to:

Deflating Russia Can Be Done

kevin837 Wrote: Mar 23, 2014 4:09 PM
What's the point? The West has bigger fish to fry. We don't need another inter-European war. This one may spell the end of western civilization, due to declining demographics, culture, and economics. There is no way that Putin would pull out of Ukraine based on sanctions. Europeans have to buy his oil and other raw materials. Russia has other customers who would buy and in any event, oil is fungible and sanctions a mere nuisance. Russia will figure out how to do business without the US dollar. While Europeans squabble (if we count Obama as a European), Iran is on the fast track to getting nukes.
Washington's "list of rules" didn't include a prohibition on pot. He did grow hemp, the kind of cannabis that is virtually non-psychoactive. Back then, getting high from pot was not well-known. Though people often abused alcohol, to blunt pain that was not resolved through the-then primitive medicine. Pot and alcohol have health benefits, but generally pot has less harmful side-effects. You don't like pot because of it's image. One's man's "licentiousness" is another man's hobby. Personally I think karate is more threatening to health than pot, and religion alters consciousness more than pot. To each his own, live and let live. Of course we need some rules, but those rules should be agreed to, not imposed; unless we are talking about the common law. That is, the laws in common to all nations (Jus Gentium).
In response to:

Ann Coulter's Conservative Sell-Out

kevin837 Wrote: Feb 06, 2014 3:22 AM
Oh---the noblesse oblige. The author must be "to the manor born", and growing a lucrative crop in his greenhouse, to be so (ostentatiously) indifferent to working for money. I suppose he would have us all in a religious retreat, contemplating the angels. Meanwhile, back in reality, McCain was a putz and Hillary would have been better for two reasons: Bill Clinton the triangulater and the repellant personality of Hillary that would have galvanized congressional opposition. Like how they opposed Hillary-care. And we could do a lot worse (and not much better) if Alan Dershowitz were on the US Supreme Court. I say that as a Libertarian, though we are known to show up at CPAC as well. Islam is incompatible with freedom and humanism. Social conservatives of whatever stripe, terrorists whether Crusader or Jihader, are not the sort we ought to welcome into civilized society much less with a movement dedicated to freedom in thought, commerce, and personal life.
In response to:

Alcohol vs. Marijuana (Part 1)

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 29, 2014 3:48 AM
People specialize, which is why Chuck Norris is not an expert on everything. He's a martial arts and fitness expert, and good at acting. He's not a nutritionist. Wheat, even whole wheat organically grown, isn't that good; vegetables and a small portion of lean meat are better. Further, toasting at above 120 degrees F tends to destroy nutritional value of the bread. Pot is not physically addictive. Those who claim it is addictive, are fudging the definition of "addictive". They are including subjective mood as if that were important. Driving while intoxicated is a separate issue from legalization. We don't want people driving while drunk, nor do we want them driving while stoned. Although being stoned on pot is not a dangerous as being drunk on alcohol. Because alcohol is more debilitating, physically and mentally. Pot and alcohol should not be consumed by children or teenagers. Because their brains are being formed. Being stoned on pot may temporarily lower IQ by a few points, but because pot is far less dangerous than alcohol, potheads tend to have a higher IQ even with the alleged 8 point reduction.
In response to:

One Nation Under Drugs

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 16, 2014 8:27 PM
Where to begin....the ignorance compounded by arrogance displayed here is truly stunning. Let's start with numbers. Prior to I-502, the state had to prove impairment in order to charge someone with driving while impaired. Subsequent to it's passage, a "per se" limit was established for THC (but not for alcohol). That means, someone can be convicted for smoking pot hours (perhaps days) previously, regardless of whether or not they are impaired. To not realize this will increase statistics for conviction (without increasing impairment) evidences a kind of failure of thought which the author projects unto others. What better way to pave the road to socialism, than to encourage the kind of magical thinking evidenced here. A form a mental impairment not caused by drugs, but perhaps--almost certainly--by religious fanaticism. Scottie's pretty little head apparently has not wrapped itself around the fact that prohibition provides indirect subsidy to drug gangs, including those affiliated with Islamist terrorists. How many people will be maimed or killed, caught in the crossfire of this crazy war?
In response to:

Is America Going to Pot?

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 7:35 PM
Beer and whiskey have the same active ingredient: alcohol. Pot and cocaine are entirely different and have no ingredients in common. Cigarettes kill over 400,000 people each year. Yet pot does not directly cause any deaths. If people are inebriated, by whatever substance, they should not drive. Pat's thinking is so out of touch with reality, I wonder if he has the competence to drive a vehicle. He does not have the ability to drive a logical argument.
In response to:

Enough Pot Happy Talk

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 04, 2014 5:00 PM
"simply got lung cancer"? Really?! Tobacco consumption kills about 440,000 Americans per year: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ Does Kathy seriously imagine that writing in ALL CAPS, and personal family anecdotes, can substitute for studies and reason? Any positive correlation between heroin and pot consumption, can be laid at the door of prohibition, which considers both illegal. Thus, the black market handles both, so when people buy pot they have a greater chance of meeting a heroin dealer. In any event, even if all drugs were deadly dangerous, prohibition prevents evolution from doing it's work. Europe has a long history of alcohol consumption, so those people who have strong genes were more likely to survive and have offspring. Which explains why Europeans and European-Americans have a greater tolerance for alcohol, than peoples who have not had long experience with that drug. Government should not shield people from the consequences of their own choices.
In response to:

Enough Pot Happy Talk

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 04, 2014 4:50 PM
Pot is not physically addictive. If we were to count "psychological addiction" we would have to include, internet blogging, religion, stock market investing, etc. Pot is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Studies are not clear if pot significantly interferes with safe driving, net. Adolescent consumption of alcohol is also especially damaging. If you need government to control your habits, fine, then sign a contract with a government (or a dominatrix) and sign over your free will to them. Just don't make your ignorance and weakness, an excuse to deprive other people of basic liberty. The side effects are far, far less. For starters, do you really want to provide the Taliban with $200+ million/year? Do you really want more violent gangs, and a civil war like in Mexico?
Derek Hunter apparently is of the "tweeter" generation but I won't hold his youth and inexperience against him. He appears to have fallen prey to the Rothbard apocrypha. "Liberty" does not mean, not intervening. It does mean, if you intervene, finance the intervention through user fees not taxes. There is no requirement in libertarianism to withdraw all troops to within US borders. There is a suggestion that to finance itself in the marketplace, the US military must charge user fees for what it now dispenses altruistically. We of the Libertarian Defense Caucus do not accept Rothbard's distortion of the movement, nor his re-definition of competing governments ("Jus Gentium") into "anarcho-captialism" [sic]. Rather, we take the conservative view that the roman republic should be restored.
Previous 11 - 20 Next