You guys ought to publish your theories!

[skeptic]

"Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then.

Sadly they are."

It depends. For the defense, a doctor as an expert witness costs what Phil, a few hundred an hour? You say that's awfully cheap? Say a five to ten thousand a day? Hire Herr Doktor Zigmund von Freudenshtien and he will convince the jury that Jacques zee Rippear vuz kookoo frum ze time he vuz zee leetle child because iz mama unt papa didn't treeet im right, zo he need to go to zee hospeetal for zee treatmint, not zee preezon.

Then for the prosecutor, they hire a professor from the local state college campus Dr. Smith who gets paid $132 a day and a $20 meal allowance for lunch and he will tell you the defendant is a depraved maniac who knew exactly what he was doing and should get the needle but certainly should never be allowed out on the street again.

What will the jury do?

[pctower]

"Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then.

Sadly they are."

It depends. For the defense, a doctor as an expert witness costs what Phil, a few hundred an hour? You say that's awfully cheap? Say a five to ten thousand a day? Hire Herr Doktor Zigmund von Freudenshtien and he will convince the jury that Jacques zee Rippear vuz kookoo frum ze time he vuz zee leetle child because iz mama unt papa didn't treeet im right, zo he need to go to zee hospeetal for zee treatmint, not zee preezon.

Then for the prosecutor, they hire a professor from the local state college campus Dr. Smith who gets paid $132 a day and a $20 meal allowance for lunch and he will tell you the defendant is a depraved maniac who knew exactly what he was doing and should get the needle but certainly should never be allowed out on the street again.

What will the jury do?

Most juries do what they are suppose to do. Follow the judge's instructions and decide the case based on facts presented to them. They often do not buy the opinions of so called "experts" hook, line and sinker. They have a pretty good nose generally for smelling a prostitute.

Apparently, I have a much greater trust than you do in the jury system that goes back centuries. The flaws in the systems today are like all human institutions, they are the flaws that plague all institutions of today. The flaws may change over time just as the flaws predominating human affairs change over time. So what do we do, turn the whole thing over to machines invented by irrational people such as you?

Unfortunately, the hypothetical you posed is generally skewed in the opposite direction. The vast majority of criminal defendants can't possibly match the resources of the state. We are seeing many examples right now where people who have served years in prison are finally being exonerated through use of DNA. Also, have you explored the numerous facts that Alan Dershowitz is currently uncovering about the kangaroo court that convicted Mike Tyson of rape?

Your crocodile tears for the prosecurtors are sadly misplaced in most instances.

The real problem, in my not so humble opinion, with the criminal justice system today is that enforcement of drug offenses (users) through incarceration has overwhelmed the capacity of the system to handle the number of cases.

In addition, the vast majority of criminals come from highly abusive and dysfunctional families (or lack thereof). This is a fact regardless of how much you want to make parody of it. Just keep laughing in your pompous, self-rightous way and simply live with much higher odds of being a victim of crime because our political system is unwilling to tackle the root causes of crime.

If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would (1) focus our efforts on crimes against people and property, and (2) deal more directly with the conditions that breed criminals generation after generation. We can never eliminate crime, but I believe that our political system could do a much more effect job of shaping the judicial system to deal more effectively with true crime and to find ways beyond the scope of the judicial system to deal more effectively with the causes of crime.

[Siper2]

People can call chiropractic a hoax all they like. Honestly, I could care less.
Those who "disbelieve" in its effectiveness, or some of the things that they or other "alternative" (I always get a kick out of that) practices simply aren't interested in learning a new approach. I grew up on a medicine cabinet. I wanted something better, and found it. What people believe is irrelevant: this isn't theology. It's fact.
Before anyone says "where's the proof?" they really should do their own research.
Talking to people or groups who don't like anything but their own practices doesn't qualify, and that's what most people do for "research."

Hippocrates was one of the first recorded people to recognize examination of the spine as a window to health. So it really baffles me when a lot of "traditional" healthcare practitioners scoff at it, since they wrap much of their theory around his teachings.
That whole "Hippocratic Oath" thing. My point simply being that arbitrary, malicious slander will get you nowhere--if you want to learn, you have to investigate every angle.

Which is why I brought the analogy in, in the first place. Why spend eleventy billion dollars on cable, when you don't have to? When something very pure and basic will do the same thing? (Okay, so it wasn't a perfect analogy, but like you said, pctower, this place is a great open forum. That's why I used to hang out here so much. Always good for entertainment!)


I welcome an open discussion as much as the next guy, but honestly I really want to know what people think about the chance to bring a new idea forward to stereo/theater consumers.

It's not impossible or irrational, it's just not been done.

=S2=

[skeptic]

How timely. It was only recently that the BBC broadcast its program Horizon in which they took up "The Amazing Randi's" offer of one million dollars to anyone who could prove that homeopathy works. James Randi is not a scientist but a magician going all over the world debunking garbage claims like ESP and other supernatural and non scientific claims. The tests were of course double blind with rigorous measures taken to assure their fairness.

"Horizon takes up the challenge

Although many researchers now offered proof that the effects of homeopathy can be measured, none have yet applied for James Randi's million dollar prize. For the first time in the programme's history, Horizon decided to conduct their own scientific experiment.

The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby oversaw the experiment, and James Randi flew in from the United States to watch.

As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.

To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."

You can read the whole transcript of the program at;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...thytrans.shtml

There are also weblinks to more of this summary, Q&A, and a BBC interview with James Randi.

This is one alternative medical procedure that can surely be called a hoax and a fraud. Not my opinion, but a now established fact based on scientific proof. Want to disagree? If you can prove your point, contact James Randi. It will be worth one million dollars to you.

[mtrycraft]

People can call chiropractic a hoax all they like. =S2=

When you present them as being opposed to vaccination because it has 'chemicals'
nothing further needs to be said. They are out to lunch.
When Phil Donahue comes on the scene and denounces it as well and the gullible public follow him causing the resurgence of everything that we have eliminated, nothing left to say.

Pertussis was well controlled and almost eliminated until another idiot Justus Strum in Sweden comes on scence and and the rest is history, how pertussis is regaining a foothold in many countries.


Those who "disbelieve" in its effectiveness,

Oh, so one needs to believe? Sounds like a religion to me, one needs to believe.

or some of the things that they or other "alternative" (I always get a kick out of that) practices simply aren't interested in learning a new approach.


On the contraty, medicine looks at new approaches and discards the ones that don't work while believers never do, regardless of the evidence.

I grew up on a medicine cabinet. I wanted something better, and found it.

Good for you. Is that like picking a religion that you like better?

What people believe is irrelevant:

That is not what you are saying though.

this isn't theology.

You could have fooled me.

It's fact.

Facts are based on evidence, hard ones, credible ones, onse that can be replicated. So far, alternative medicine has not been able. That is why they are alternative, "unproven"

Before anyone says "where's the proof?" they really should do their own research.

No, you need to supply the proof. But I know you don't have it.


Talking to people or groups who don't like anything but their own practices doesn't qualify, and that's what most people do for "research."

No, of course that will not do. We need to talk to the believers and just accept their word? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

[skeptic]

"When you present them as being opposed to vaccination because it has 'chemicals'
nothing further needs to be said. They are out to lunch.
When Phil Donahue comes on the scene and denounces it as well and the gullible public follow him causing the resurgence of everything that we have eliminated, nothing left to say.

Pertussis was well controlled and almost eliminated until another idiot Justus Strum in Sweden comes on scence and and the rest is history, how pertussis is regaining a foothold in many countries.


Those who "disbelieve" in its effectiveness,

Oh, so one needs to believe? Sounds like a religion to me, one needs to believe."

Thanks to the idiocy of some Moslem clerics in Africa, people are being frightened to the point where they are refusing to have their children vaccinated and polio which was on the verge of being wiped out is now making a strong resurgence there. One more unnecessary tragedy to befall the people of Africa who suffer so much already.

[mtrycraft]

"When you present them as being opposed to vaccination because it has 'chemicals'
nothing further needs to be said. They are out to lunch.
When Phil Donahue comes on the scene and denounces it as well and the gullible public follow him causing the resurgence of everything that we have eliminated, nothing left to say.

Pertussis was well controlled and almost eliminated until another idiot Justus Strum in Sweden comes on scence and and the rest is history, how pertussis is regaining a foothold in many countries.


Those who "disbelieve" in its effectiveness,

Oh, so one needs to believe? Sounds like a religion to me, one needs to believe."

Thanks to the idiocy of some Moslem clerics in Africa, people are being frightened to the point where they are refusing to have their children vaccinated and polio which was on the verge of being wiped out is now making a strong resurgence there. One more unnecessary tragedy to befall the people of Africa who suffer so much already.

Unfortunately it doesn't affect those idiot leaders.

[Siper2]

mtrycraft,

Actually, there's a lot of proof. Again, it's a matter of people actually looking them up.

As for your claims of having to believe something, that is why I put "belief" in quotes, to state exactly the contrary.

Back to the matter of proof:

Vaccines alone:
- ammonium sulfate (can be poisonous to gastrointestinal (GI), liver, nerve and respiratory function)
- beta-propiolactone (some links to cancers, also GI, liver, respiratory, skin and sensory organ danger)
- viral DNA
- latex rubber (commonly known to cause allergic reactions, and that's only topical, not intraveinous)
- monosodium glutamate (commonly called MSG, it's a neurotoxin)
- aluminum (linked to brain damage)
- formaldehyde (embalming fluid, linked to leukemia, brain, colon and lymphatic cancers, among other problems)
- micro-organisms (not saying these are entirely bad, they're much the reason vaccines exist... however what worked for polio is STILL being used, and turns up on bone, lung lining, brain tumors and lymphomas)
- polysorbate 80 (has caused cancers in animals)
- tri(n)butylphosphate (kidney and nerve toxin)
- glutaraldehyde (birth defects in tested animals)
- gelatin (some allergic reactions reported)
- gentamicin sulfate & polymoxin B (antibiotics, with mild to fatal reactions common)
- mercury (one of the more poisonous substances known--minute amounts cause nerve damage... many cases of autism in children linked to mercury in vaccinations, especially in recent media)
- neomycin sulfate (epilepsy, mental retardation, allergic reactions vary)
- phenol/pneoxyethanol (antifreeze)
- human & animal cells (human cells from aborted fetal tissue... pig/horse blood, rabbit brain, guinea pig, dog kidney, cow heart, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg, calf secrum, sheep blood, etc.)

There are entire legions of parents getting away from vaccinations, thousands of whom have had children fall ill as a direct result of unnecessary vaccination, pushed by doctors.
Yet most parents don't know that many state laws allow for a choice.
Hundreds of children die every year due to these things. And it's not only them.... I was at a seminar once, where a former Marine went in to teary detail of the drug rounds he had to receive prior to going overseas in Desert Storm. He nearly died from the reactions.
Under certain circumstances, caution is necessary--however overzealous usage leads to what he went through.

The drugs and some symptoms are matters of public record, obtained mostly through medical research (from NEJM, JAMA and other widely-respected healthcare resources).
This particular list I copied down from a handout given at various healthcare institutions.
Tedd Koren, DC is a major moving force in chiropractic and the truth about some of modern medicine's failings. www.korenpublications.com

Honestly I could sit here for six hours and spout of sources, but I'm busy watching Law&Order with my wife. Good two-hour special. Koren's site is one of the most useful sources for objective views on things the public simply hasn't been aware of, unless they did a lot of digging on their own. (Again the comparison of bringing the information to the surface.. the cable analogy... As the thread's originator I'm obliged to mention that once or twice, I suppose. ) In the 1970s, the medical profession tried to debunk chiropractic in the high court, based on nothing but superficial claims that chiros are charlatans.

Naturally, they lost. Yet mysteriously never paid what they were ordered to pay. Interesting.

As for Koren, his information is definitely stirring, and has challenged structure for many years. He's been sued by several people, including the federal government, for similar unsubstantiated claims. They all lost. For the simple fact that the claims against him had no basis in fact, but I'd love to meet his lawyers.


Don't get me wrong, really. When I said that the medical system needs its foundations, I meant it. If I get run over by a truck, you'd damn well better bring me to the ER to get my **** sewn back on. I do take allergy medication when I really need to. I'm not an extremist by any measure, when it comes to this. Just a messenger for the obvious, which other people see as "false." Every healthcare field deserves its place. When they overstep their bounds, that's when trouble starts.

Chiropractors might take slack for bringing this info in the open, but they were just one of the only major forces to do so. If it had been a team of plumbers, so be it. The facts would still be there. My belief is this: any chiropractor who claims that they can indefinitely heal you of a symptom is full of ****. Usually, symptoms do subside, as the cause of the problem is found. They're one of the only remaining practices, in western healthcare at least, that has an ounce of belief in the body's ability to heal itself (which is rather what it was intended to do). You absolutely do not need to pop a pill for every sniffle.
But you sure as hell wouldn't believe that, based on the TV-loaded advertisements pushed forth by the pharmaceutical companies, who of course sell through doctors. More free media regulations might be helping their money-making causes, I have no idea.

I do NOT want all drugs abolished. I do NOT want MDs or DOs or whoever to be nonexistent. What I do want is some practice of good sense. Chiropractic was the first official profession to look to the spine for the CAUSE of dis-ease. Since the brain controls every function of the body, and its only pathway is via the spinal cord to all the nerve endings which touch every cell you possess, one would think somebody bloody well ought to be teaching preventative maintenance of such an important structure.

After all... dentistry had its share of naysayers, yet now nobody would even dare go to sleep without brushing, and visiting for a cleaning twice a year. And that's just a few external bones. Never mind the structure that maintains the entire human frame.

Now if you'll excuse me.... I have to go find out who those NYC lawyers are going to convict...

=S2=

[skeptic]

"Apparently, I have a much greater trust than you do in the jury system "

I never said or implied anything about my trust in the jury system. All I said was that if you pay enough, you can find a certified expert who will testify to just about anything.

"The vast majority of criminal defendants can't possibly match the resources of the state."

Most cases in real life unlike those on television are open and shut. The guilt of the perp is not in doubt.

"The real problem, in my not so humble opinion, with the criminal justice system today is that enforcement of drug offenses (users) through incarceration has overwhelmed the capacity of the system to handle the number of cases."

Then the solution is to institute more courts and build more prisons, not let drug dealers and repeat offenders off the hook. Even the Europeans in countries like Holland are starting to take a hard look at their drug problems and re-examine their permissive attitude. BBC just broadcast a program about how much more dangerous cannabis is than was previously thought and how the reclassification of it from a class B to a class C drug has had unexpected consequences in some parts of Britain. Cannabis users increase their chances of becoming schizophrenics by 600%. Illegal drug use has unnecessarily destroyed more lives directly and indirectly in the United States than any other single cause. The call to decriminalize the use of dangerous drugs by some attornies is very misguided and would only encourage more teens to experiment with it.

"In addition, the vast majority of criminals come from highly abusive and dysfunctional families..."

Most poor people and children from broken homes can and do grow up without becoming criminals. Blaming society for the individual repeat offender criminal implies that we should turn lose tens of thousands of dangerous people on the streets. Putting them in jail where they belong and making it clear that there is real and definite punishment not only serves as a deterrant to crime but it gives society a respite from them. Perhaps the state should intervene much more aggressively and remove children from abusive parents while putting them in jail where they belong. I like three times and you're out. For some crimes like murder and kidnapping it should be one time and you're out. That's how it used to be. Ever hear of a judge in New York City called turn-'em-loose Bruce White? He subscribed to your socially liberal philosophy which contributed to the crime waves that nearly destroyed the city in the seventies. It took prosecutors and later mayors like Giulliani to clean it up and make the city liveable again. I have a much lower chance of being a victim of violent crime than most people. My condo in the suburbs where I used to live is in a gated community with a full time guard and a high wall around it. My home in a rural area is in a place where crime is practically non existant. My town isn't even on most maps. I won't go near high crime areas until the consequences of lawmaker lawyers with your views who got themselves elected by the "there but for the grace of god go I" bleeding hearts are cleaned up.

"If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would (1) focus our efforts on crimes against people and property, and (2) deal more directly with the conditions that breed criminals generation after generation."

Tolerance for illegal drugs are crimes against people and lead to crimes against property when drug addicts commit burglaries and murder to steal money for their insatiable obsession. The condition which breeds criminals is tolerance for it starting in childhood. Bring back truant officers and reform schools. Let the little monsters know as teenagers a taste of what life on the inside will be like if they don't change. Take sentencing out of the hands of judges who are so ready to let criminals off. Televise executions if necessary so that the ordinary criminal who laughs at the sysem can see the full horror of the consequences if he continues to commit worse crimes. Your ideas have been tried and not only failed but have done a lot of damage to society. Reversion to much tougher laws and sentencing is only beginning to repair the damage done decades ago.

BTW, Joel Steinberg, the crazed cocaine addicted killer who murdered his 6 year old daughter Lisa by beating her to death while high as a kite and repeatedly beating his live in girlfriend Hedda Nussbaum is being released this week after serving only two thirds of his 24 year sentence. By your thinking, I suppose he got too much. By mine he should have received the death penalty.

[pctower]

"Apparently, I have a much greater trust than you do in the jury system "

I never said or implied anything about my trust in the jury system. All I said was that if you pay enough, you can find a certified expert who will testify to just about anything.

"The vast majority of criminal defendants can't possibly match the resources of the state."

Most cases in real life unlike those on television are open and shut. The guilt of the perp is not in doubt.

"The real problem, in my not so humble opinion, with the criminal justice system today is that enforcement of drug offenses (users) through incarceration has overwhelmed the capacity of the system to handle the number of cases."

Then the solution is to institute more courts and build more prisons, not let drug dealers and repeat offenders off the hook. Even the Europeans in countries like Holland are starting to take a hard look at their drug problems and re-examine their permissive attitude. BBC just broadcast a program about how much more dangerous cannabis is than was previously thought and how the reclassification of it from a class B to a class C drug has had unexpected consequences in some parts of Britain. Cannabis users increase their chances of becoming schizophrenics by 600%. Illegal drug use has unnecessarily destroyed more lives directly and indirectly in the United States than any other single cause. The call to decriminalize the use of dangerous drugs by some attornies is very misguided and would only encourage more teens to experiment with it.

"In addition, the vast majority of criminals come from highly abusive and dysfunctional families..."

Most poor people and children from broken homes can and do grow up without becoming criminals. Blaming society for the individual repeat offender criminal implies that we should turn lose tens of thousands of dangerous people on the streets. Putting them in jail where they belong and making it clear that there is real and definite punishment not only serves as a deterrant to crime but it gives society a respite from them. Perhaps the state should intervene much more aggressively and remove children from abusive parents while putting them in jail where they belong. I like three times and you're out. For some crimes like murder and kidnapping it should be one time and you're out. That's how it used to be. Ever hear of a judge in New York City called turn-'em-loose Bruce White? He subscribed to your socially liberal philosophy which contributed to the crime waves that nearly destroyed the city in the seventies. It took prosecutors and later mayors like Giulliani to clean it up and make the city liveable again. I have a much lower chance of being a victim of violent crime than most people. My condo in the suburbs where I used to live is in a gated community with a full time guard and a high wall around it. My home in a rural area is in a place where crime is practically non existant. My town isn't even on most maps. I won't go near high crime areas until the consequences of lawmaker lawyers with your views who got themselves elected by the "there but for the grace of god go I" bleeding hearts are cleaned up.

"If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would (1) focus our efforts on crimes against people and property, and (2) deal more directly with the conditions that breed criminals generation after generation."

Tolerance for illegal drugs are crimes against people and lead to crimes against property when drug addicts commit burglaries and murder to steal money for their insatiable obsession. The condition which breeds criminals is tolerance for it starting in childhood. Bring back truant officers and reform schools. Let the little monsters know as teenagers a taste of what life on the inside will be like if they don't change. Take sentencing out of the hands of judges who are so ready to let criminals off. Televise executions if necessary so that the ordinary criminal who laughs at the sysem can see the full horror of the consequences if he continues to commit worse crimes. Your ideas have been tried and not only failed but have done a lot of damage to society. Reversion to much tougher laws and sentencing is only beginning to repair the damage done decades ago.

BTW, Joel Steinberg, the crazed cocaine addicted killer who murdered his 6 year old daughter Lisa by beating her to death while high as a kite and repeatedly beating his live in girlfriend Hedda Nussbaum is being released this week after serving only two thirds of his 24 year sentence. By your thinking, I suppose he got too much. By mine he should have received the death penalty.

Then the solution is to institute more courts and build more prisons, not let drug dealers and repeat offenders off the hook.

We're already taxed to the point of stangalation. The continuing cost of this approach will bring this nation to its knees.

Most poor people and children from broken homes can and do grow up without becoming criminals.

I said nothing about poor people or broken homes. Interesting that you seem to assume that just being poor or having divorced parents means you come from a dysfunctional upbringing.

With a lot of criminals we're not talking about less than perfect parents. We're talking about severe and persistent abuse that most of us cannot even imagine. I believe that most children who suffer that kind of abuse either become criminals, die early or lead worthless and painful lives that creates nothing buy a burden for the rest of society.

The condition which breeds criminals is tolerance for it starting in childhood. Bring back truant officers and reform schools. Let the little monsters know as teenagers a taste of what life on the inside will be like if they don't change. Take sentencing out of the hands of judges who are so ready to let criminals off. Televise executions if necessary so that the ordinary criminal who laughs at the sysem can see the full horror of the consequences if he continues to commit worse crimes. Your ideas have been tried and not only failed but have done a lot of damage to society. Reversion to much tougher laws and sentencing is only beginning to repair the damage done decades ago.

You are mad (as in crazy) and frightenly out of touch. Above all, virtually all of what you recommend runs counter to the vast body of research conducted in accordance with the scientific method that you constatly defend in the area of electronics. Moreover, your willingness to employ antecdotal evidence in support of your own mean-spirited biases is quite amusing.

[skeptic]

But counselor, your opinion runs contrary to the current views mainstream America which is fed up with crime and criminals and is tired of having appologists find ways to get the criminals off so they can go out and commit more mayhem and destroy more lives. Your way has been tried and failed. Face it Tower, the philosophy of flower child generation of the 1960s is finished forever. You can put away your sandals and your tie dyes. Whatever the reason for their anti social behavior, America wants criminals off the streets.

[pctower]

But counselor, your opinion runs contrary to the current views mainstream America which is fed up with crime and criminals and is tired of having appologists find ways to get the criminals off so they can go out and commit more mayhem and destroy more lives. Your way has been tried and failed. Face it Tower, the philosophy of flower child generation of the 1960s is finished forever. You can put away your sandals and your tie dyes. Whatever the reason for their anti social behavior, America wants criminals off the streets.

You might want to look at:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/f...=crime&list=21

and:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts4.html

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1005.pdf

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12055

http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

http://www.cfpa.org/issues/substanceabuse/index.cfm

http://www.swheath.com/doc/polsc270treatment.htm

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...sht/treatment/

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...sicfax.htm#q16

Happy reading!

[Monstrous Mike]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts4.html
Happy reading!

Who is Jeremy Bentham? Yikes! As a side note on the comments about prosecutorial ethics, the name Kenneth Star comes to mind.

[Monstrous Mike]

Then the solution is to institute more courts and build more prisons, not let drug dealers and repeat offenders off the hook.

Tolerance for illegal drugs are crimes against people and lead to crimes against property when drug addicts commit burglaries and murder to steal money for their insatiable obsession.

Skeptic, while I agree with your position on cables, I do not believe you apply the same logic and reason with regard to drugs.

In the last 10 years, drug use has remained level yet the "War on Drugs" has received a 50% increase in funding. You know how to do math, don't you? Here are some salient points to consider.

1. Look at the origins of drug laws. It was based on race. Opium was outlawed in the late 19th century out of fear that the Chinese who were smoking it would lure white women. Cocaine was outlawed for a fear of black men going crazy and raping white women. And outlawing in the early 20th century meant you needed a license to sell drugs. And the big powerful white men found that they could set up a little empire going after people without licenses. And the less licenses they issued, the more enforcement they needed. I cannot see how this has changed in the last 100 years.

2. Look at the hazard of drugs. Tobacco kills more people in one year than prohibited drugs have killed people in the entire 20th century.

3. Let's look at drugs and violence. There is only one drug that clearing increases aggression when consumed and that drug is alcohol. The violence and crime associated with prohibited drugs are the result of the fact that they are illegal making them very expensive and that they are generally distributed by criminal organizations. Most authorities on drug use agree that the violence associated with drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal.

4. The myth of marijuana being a gateway drug has been convincingly debunked. It simply isn't true so the use of this arguement in defending the war on drugs is patently illogical.

5. Every scholarly drug study has recommended decriminalization of drugs. Yet, this recommendation has not ever been implemented or even accepted.

6. There is no common sense reason for tobacco, alochol and prescription drugs to be legal and other drugs to be illegal other than the fact that tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs are a huge industry and the fight against all the other drugs are another huge industry.

So why haven't things changed? The easy answer is power. Marijuana is a gateway drug in one sense. It's a gateway for law enforcement agencies to break your shield of privacy. Oh yeah, don't forget those huge "industries".

Somebody please tell me why in my own home I can pickle my liver with Jack Daniels but I can't light up a joint?

There are about 900,000 people in prison in the US for drug-related offences. If you think the solution is to build more prisons and throw more people in jail well then sir, you are nuts.

[skeptic]

" The violence and crime associated with prohibited drugs are the result of the fact that they are illegal making them very expensive and that they are generally distributed by criminal organizations. Most authorities on drug use agree that the violence associated with drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal."

Tell it to Lisa Steinberg. Oh I forgot you can't, she was killed by her cocaine crazed father who is about to be released from prison.

Tell it to the parents of kids who experimented with LSD and jumped out of an upper story window because they thought they could fly.

Tell it to the families of kids who do nothing but sit around all the time because smoking marijuana left them without the desire to make anything out of their lives.

Tell it to the victims and their families of date rape drugs.

Tell it to the children of crack addicts who never take care of them or even feed them anymore.

Tell it to the heroine addicts who spend their lives nodding off between scrambling to steal money for their next fix.

Tell it to countless movie stars, rock stars, and sports stars who threw away brilliant careers and vast fortunes because they became addicted to crack cocaine.

Tell it to the cops who pick up the shattered pieces of countless thousands of lives broken by drugs.

Monstrous, just monstrous Mike.

Go back to your "scholarly studies." You obviously know more about it than any of the victims do.

[Rockwell]

" The violence and crime associated with prohibited drugs are the result of the fact that they are illegal making them very expensive and that they are generally distributed by criminal organizations. Most authorities on drug use agree that the violence associated with drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal."

Tell it to Lisa Steinberg. Oh I forgot you can't, she was killed by her cocaine crazed father who is about to be released from prison.

Tell it to the parents of kids who experimented with LSD and jumped out of an upper story window because they thought they could fly.

Tell it to the families of kids who do nothing but sit around all the time because smoking marijuana left them without the desire to make anything out of their lives.

Tell it to the victims and their families of date rape drugs.

Tell it to the children of crack addicts who never take care of them or even feed them anymore.

Tell it to the heroine addicts who spend their lives nodding off between scrambling to steal money for their next fix.

Tell it to countless movie stars, rock stars, and sports stars who threw away brilliant careers and vast fortunes because they became addicted to crack cocaine.

Tell it to the cops who pick up the shattered pieces of countless thousands of lives broken by drugs.

Monstrous, just monstrous Mike.

Go back to your "scholarly studies." You obviously know more about it than any of the victims do.

Yes, and drugs are illegal, aren't they? Drug laws didn't stop any of that, but it did shatter the lives of countless people who didn't hurt anyone. We already have laws against neglecting your children, raping, and killing.

[skeptic]

"Drug laws didn't stop any of that, but it did shatter the lives of countless people who didn't hurt anyone."

No they didn't. Those lives were shattered by the people who BROKE the laws. And now there's a better reason than ever to enforce them. The profits from some of those drugs are being used to fund the terrorists who want to destroy America.

[Monstrous Mike]

" The violence and crime associated with prohibited drugs are the result of the fact that they are illegal making them very expensive and that they are generally distributed by criminal organizations. Most authorities on drug use agree that the violence associated with drugs is due to the fact that they are illegal."

Tell it to Lisa Steinberg. Oh I forgot you can't, she was killed by her cocaine crazed father who is about to be released from prison.

Tell it to the parents of kids who experimented with LSD and jumped out of an upper story window because they thought they could fly.

Tell it to the families of kids who do nothing but sit around all the time because smoking marijuana left them without the desire to make anything out of their lives.

Tell it to the victims and their families of date rape drugs.

Tell it to the children of crack addicts who never take care of them or even feed them anymore.

Tell it to the heroine addicts who spend their lives nodding off between scrambling to steal money for their next fix.

Tell it to countless movie stars, rock stars, and sports stars who threw away brilliant careers and vast fortunes because they became addicted to crack cocaine.

Tell it to the cops who pick up the shattered pieces of countless thousands of lives broken by drugs.

Monstrous, just monstrous Mike.

Go back to your "scholarly studies." You obviously know more about it than any of the victims do.

Take each of your stories and substitute "alcohol" for "drugs".

Are you in favour of prohibiting alcohol? If we are going to protect people from consuming mind altering substances, then we have to include alcohol, don't we?

Call me crazy but I support holding people responsible for their actions, not what kind of mood they are in.

Like I said about you and your reasonable views on cables, you seem to depart here with illogical arguements.

An analogy to what you are saying in those statements in your post could be applied to almost anything. I read of a guy who killed his wife with a butterknife. Do we need to ban butterknives? That's your logic here. Or how about the guy who read a book and then committed murders just like the story of the book. Ban the book? Again, that's your logic here.

[996turbo]

"Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then.

Sadly they are."

It depends. For the defense, a doctor as an expert witness costs what Phil, a few hundred an hour? You say that's awfully cheap? Say a five to ten thousand a day? Hire Herr Doktor Zigmund von Freudenshtien and he will convince the jury that Jacques zee Rippear vuz kookoo frum ze time he vuz zee leetle child because iz mama unt papa didn't treeet im right, zo he need to go to zee hospeetal for zee treatmint, not zee preezon.

Then for the prosecutor, they hire a professor from the local state college campus Dr. Smith who gets paid $132 a day and a $20 meal allowance for lunch and he will tell you the defendant is a depraved maniac who knew exactly what he was doing and should get the needle but certainly should never be allowed out on the street again.

What will the jury do?

This no more qualifies me to have an opinion herethan the others but at least I can talk to one whenever I want about whatever topic.

First of all My father hates to be an expert witness but due to his qualifications and tenure in his field hi is sough after. He charges about $500 an hour to consult. He continually charges more but they continue to come.

I just asked him about the drug companies and he told me that by law the Drug companies were not allowed to directly endorse their product any further than just funding the night. Wives are invited because as he said "why would I want to go eat dinner with a bunch of guys". He also said that it is just an evening out that happens to be paid by the drug companies. He uses what works and only changes after there is good evidence to change.

On Chiropracters Orthopods in general refer patients to them as Chiropracters refer patients to Orthopods. They are necesary and useful profesionals according to my father.

I think the analogy is not really working. What does make sense is that I find it interesting that some of the people here like to act like they know everything and make conjectures about things they know nothing about just because they read it somewhere. none of you can make comments about being a ddoctor unless you are one and none of you can make comments about equipment unless you have tried it. Reading does not count only experience. Reading will give you a foundation but at the same time the psychoacoustics will come into play even more.