Guest guest Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 I would think the number of applicants would decrease right along with the decrease in the number of smokers and children exposed to smoke. The program would die a natural death which is good. States are suing tobacco companies directly for health costs that the state pays out for smoking related illnesses. I am not sure where the litigation stands. All I am saying is take it off of us and have the smokers pay up front with a tax for what they will inevitably need in the future. s. fuchs dc From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of hillcrestchiro Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:25 AM Subject: Re: thanks... The decrease in number of smokers decreases but the number of applicants in the insurance pool increases over time. So who makes up the shortfall? Governments lie all the time too. , DC, DABCO > > You must remember the tobacco companies lie. Who says the program will run out of money? The answer is the tobacco companies. They conveniently use projections that assume people will be sicker. If smoking increases they are correct. However, when tobacco taxes go up the number of smokers decrease and the number of children who start smoking decreases. The result is fewer sick children because they and their parents are not smoking. So the cost of the program will decrease. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Hard to argue with anything you have said. Jay Concordia Chiropractic Center thanks...> > ...for your thoughtful comments.> > I wonder whether your notions of 'non wasteful' extend to such > governmental agencies as Medicare, CIA, DOD, DOT, FBI, any branch under > any political group of the executive or legislative branches, the USPS, > BIA, etc etc? And no, I do not consider the European models of anything > to be any more effective, beneficial OR economical in application, than > the admittedly faulty efforts in this country.> > Granted criticism of the cadre of opportunists you mention are deserving > of such. Consider effects of the governmental insistence of the breakup > of oversight of the airline industry, the phone company, utility > companies nationwide.. ..Standard Oil many years ago was chopped into > smaller pieces and each seems to have regenerated into another group of > hydraheaded profit mongering beasts in itself, don't you think?> What federal project can we name that solved one problem without > creating at least two more that were unanticipated? The only real > difference is, participation is mandatory and taxation is mandatory.> > What real differences can you list, between 'the Government'; 'insurance > carriers'; 'mafia'; 'big Pharma'; 'Big Oil'????> > Do you believe 'government' in general is any better suited to solving > social problems than private sector profit mongers? And without > 'profits' to fund their activities, our boys the Feds launch > ever-increasing extortion of taxes... certainly I can understand the > disdain for gluttonous profiteers. Can you cite as many as -one- era in > any historical period where such conflict between those opposing > factions, was not present? > > Since I stopped going to pubs long ago perhaps I have missed the > opportunity to discuss topics with sources only from the approved > list. I'll try to be more considerate for the sensitivity of those who > object to alternate sources. And I didn't realize how the form of what > people say is as critical.... I've heard some criticise Ms. Coulter under > the pretense her adam's apple is too large...> > Ann Coulter is a gad fly who has some entertaining things to say, > primarily in balance to the likes of the Bill Maher and those who > worship liberal radio concept of world events. I'm as willing to leave > her out as others are to leave the minions of the NYT. At least the NYT > uses better grammar.> > yours in health,> > J. Pedersen DC> > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Now , how to pop it in our elected leaders heads without them fearful of losing votes ? s. fuchs dc From: Lindekugel [mailto:pdxchiroguy@...] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:36 AM Sharron Fuchs; Subject: Re: Re: thanks... Hard to argue with anything you have said. Jay Concordia Chiropractic Center thanks... > > ...for your thoughtful comments. > > I wonder whether your notions of 'non wasteful' extend to such > governmental agencies as Medicare, CIA, DOD, DOT, FBI, any branch under > any political group of the executive or legislative branches, the USPS, > BIA, etc etc? And no, I do not consider the European models of anything > to be any more effective, beneficial OR economical in application, than > the admittedly faulty efforts in this country. > > Granted criticism of the cadre of opportunists you mention are deserving > of such. Consider effects of the governmental insistence of the breakup > of oversight of the airline industry, the phone company, utility > companies nationwide.. ..Standard Oil many years ago was chopped into > smaller pieces and each seems to have regenerated into another group of > hydraheaded profit mongering beasts in itself, don't you think? > What federal project can we name that solved one problem without > creating at least two more that were unanticipated? The only real > difference is, participation is mandatory and taxation is mandatory. > > What real differences can you list, between 'the Government'; 'insurance > carriers'; 'mafia'; 'big Pharma'; 'Big Oil'???? > > Do you believe 'government' in general is any better suited to solving > social problems than private sector profit mongers? And without > 'profits' to fund their activities, our boys the Feds launch > ever-increasing extortion of taxes... certainly I can understand the > disdain for gluttonous profiteers. Can you cite as many as -one- era in > any historical period where such conflict between those opposing > factions, was not present? > > Since I stopped going to pubs long ago perhaps I have missed the > opportunity to discuss topics with sources only from the approved > list. I'll try to be more considerate for the sensitivity of those who > object to alternate sources. And I didn't realize how the form of what > people say is as critical.... I've heard some criticise Ms. Coulter under > the pretense her adam's apple is too large... > > Ann Coulter is a gad fly who has some entertaining things to say, > primarily in balance to the likes of the Bill Maher and those who > worship liberal radio concept of world events. I'm as willing to leave > her out as others are to leave the minions of the NYT. At least the NYT > uses better grammar. > > yours in health, > > J. Pedersen DC > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Lets make methamphetamine legal and give subsidized prescriptions to all the addicts and have them publicly fill that prescription so everyone can watch the harm that drug does to the addict. It could stop the recruitment of more addicts by the illegal and creepy manufacturors, stop the importation of the drug from Mexico, and publicly identify the addicts so people know who to keep their kids away from. We can pay for it with a constitutionally added tax on sugar and synthetic sweeteners. Annette On Friday, October 19, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Sharron Fuchs wrote: > The damage and costs are huge that is why I think those who choose to > use should pay for the consequences. Five years ago while in NYC I was > astounded that a pack of cigs was over $7 ! And people complain about > Oregon. Go figure. Even if a tax took off just a small portion of the > premium burden from others that would be fine with me. > >  > >  > > s. fuchs dc > >  > <image.tiff> > > > From: [mailto: ] On > Behalf Ofadesiena@... > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:52 PM > pdxchiroguy@... > Cc: Sharron Fuchs; > Subject: Re: Re: thanks... > >  > > Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco?  > >  > > In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died. > > In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000. > > WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR! > > Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far! > > History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is > raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. > The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke > by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry > does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead > customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have > Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their > presidential campaigns for the entire U.S. > > Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. > > DeSiena > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 As my Daddy used to say " You can judge a lot about a man's charactor by who his friends are. " Big Tobacco haas spent $11 million to defeat this measure. There not my friends. YES on 50 Glenn Sykes, DC Newberg, OR Re: Re: thanks... > > > >Hard to argue with anything you have said. > > > >Jay > >Concordia Chiropractic Center > > thanks... >> >> ...for your thoughtful comments. >> >> I wonder whether your notions of 'non wasteful' >extend to such >> governmental agencies as Medicare, CIA, DOD, DOT, >FBI, any branch under >> any political group of the executive or legislative >branches, the USPS, >> BIA, etc etc? And no, I do not consider the European >models of anything >> to be any more effective, beneficial OR economical in >application, than >> the admittedly faulty efforts in this country. >> >> Granted criticism of the cadre of opportunists you >mention are deserving >> of such. Consider effects of the governmental >insistence of the breakup >> of oversight of the airline industry, the phone >company, utility >> companies nationwide.. ..Standard Oil many years ago >was chopped into >> smaller pieces and each seems to have regenerated >into another group of >> hydraheaded profit mongering beasts in itself, don't >you think? >> What federal project can we name that solved one >problem without >> creating at least two more that were unanticipated? >The only real >> difference is, participation is mandatory and >taxation is mandatory. >> >> What real differences can you list, between 'the >Government'; 'insurance >> carriers'; 'mafia'; 'big Pharma'; 'Big Oil'???? >> >> Do you believe 'government' in general is any better >suited to solving >> social problems than private sector profit mongers? >And without >> 'profits' to fund their activities, our boys the Feds >launch >> ever-increasing extortion of taxes... certainly I can >understand the >> disdain for gluttonous profiteers. Can you cite as >many as -one- era in >> any historical period where such conflict between >those opposing >> factions, was not present? >> >> Since I stopped going to pubs long ago perhaps I have >missed the >> opportunity to discuss topics with sources only from >the approved >> list. I'll try to be more considerate for the >sensitivity of those who >> object to alternate sources. And I didn't realize >how the form of what >> people say is as critical.... I've heard some >criticise Ms. Coulter under >> the pretense her adam's apple is too large... >> >> Ann Coulter is a gad fly who has some entertaining >things to say, >> primarily in balance to the likes of the Bill Maher >and those who >> worship liberal radio concept of world events. I'm >as willing to leave >> her out as others are to leave the minions of the >NYT. At least the NYT >> uses better grammar. >> >> yours in health, >> >> J. Pedersen DC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ >__ >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 Many , many people have suggested exactly what you say. But not me. I don’t advocate legalizing ‘recreational ‘ drugs. s. fuchs dc From: Annette Simard [mailto:drsimard@...] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:12 PM Sharron Fuchs Cc: Subject: Re: Re: thanks... Lets make methamphetamine legal and give subsidized prescriptions to all the addicts and have them publicly fill that prescription so everyone can watch the harm that drug does to the addict. It could stop the recruitment of more addicts by the illegal and creepy manufacturors, stop the importation of the drug from Mexico, and publicly identify the addicts so people know who to keep their kids away from. We can pay for it with a constitutionally added tax on sugar and synthetic sweeteners. Annette On Friday, October 19, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Sharron Fuchs wrote: The damage and costs are huge that is why I think those who choose to use should pay for the consequences. Five years ago while in NYC I was astounded that a pack of cigs was over $7 ! And people complain about Oregon. Go figure. Even if a tax took off just a small portion of the premium burden from others that would be fine with me. s. fuchs dc <image.tiff> From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Ofadesiena@... Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:52 PM To: pdxchiroguy@... Cc: Sharron Fuchs; Subject: Re: [From OregonDCs] Re: thanks... Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco? In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died. In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000. WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR! Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far! History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their presidential campaigns for the entire U.S. Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. DeSiena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 Actually, Sharon, I don't either. Nor do I want a tax on big butts. I don't want a tax on tobacco written into the constitution either. I'm not in favor of a regressive tax either. I just don't like this legislation, regardless of who is paying for either the pro or the con side. Annette On Monday, October 22, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Sharron Fuchs wrote: > Many , many people have suggested exactly what you say. But not me. I > don’t advocate legalizing ‘recreational ‘ drugs. > >  > > s. fuchs dc > >  > <image.tiff> > > > From:Annette Simard [mailto:drsimard@...] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:12 PM > Sharron Fuchs > Cc: > Subject: Re: Re: thanks... > >  > > Lets make methamphetamine legal and give subsidized prescriptions to > all the addicts and have them publicly fill that prescription so > everyone can watch the harm that drug does to the addict. It could > stop the recruitment of more addicts by the illegal and creepy > manufacturors, stop the importation of the drug from Mexico, and > publicly identify the addicts so people know who to keep their kids > away from. > >  > > We can pay for it with a constitutionally added tax on sugar and > synthetic sweeteners. > >  > > Annette > > On Friday, October 19, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Sharron Fuchs wrote: > >  > > The damage and costs are huge that is why I think those who choose to > use should pay for the consequences. Five years ago while in NYC I was > astounded that a pack of cigs was over $7 ! And people complain about > Oregon. Go figure. Even if a tax took off just a small portion of the > premium burden from others that would be fine with me. > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > > s. fuchs dc > >  > >  > >  > > <image.tiff> > >  > >  > > From: [mailto: ] On > Behalf Ofadesiena@... > > Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:52 PM > > To:pdxchiroguy@... > > Cc:Sharron Fuchs; > > Subject:Re: Re: thanks... > >  > >  > >  > > Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco?  > >  > >  > >  > > In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died. > >  > > In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000. > >  > > WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR! > >  > > Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far! > >  > > History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is > raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. > The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke > by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry > does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead > customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have > Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their > presidential campaigns for the entire U.S. > >  > > Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. > >  > > DeSiena > >  > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Meth is not recreational and it is a scourge. It and others like it should NOT be legal. Period. The evidence supports it's Illegalization. You do support legalization of mild recreational drugs unless you believe that alcohol should not be legal. Lumping everything together as "recreational" or "illegal drugs"does our country a huge disservice. Lets recognize whats harmful and what is in fact extremely mild despite their current legal status. There are substances that are far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco and most over the counter medications that are criminalized mostly due to the fear based thinking of a society 70-100 years ago. The money spent on this criminalization is absurd, hypocritical and inhumane. Lets not continue this stereotypical thinking. Lets break it down. Look at the evidence. This country needs to get over it. If there are substances that people do use for recreation that are currently less harmful than substances that already have legalization, then there is a flaw in the system of thought and law. What is currently happening is that when people do come armed with the evidence and advocate the usage and legalization of a mild recreational substance, they are chastised for wanting to "Legalize Drugs" or "Endanger our children." These blanketed statements halt all real thinking and cause a voter to reflexively say "I don't advocate the legalization of drugs" and then the same dinosaur type of thinking and law persists for another 70 years. Who amongst us looks back at prohibition of alcohol and thinks "yea, that was a good idea." ? Somehow society finally overcame the stigmatism. They will again. ph Medlin, DCSpine Tree Chiropractic1627 NE Alberta St.Portland, OR 97211 Re: Re: thanks... Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco? In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died. In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000. WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR! Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far! History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their presidential campaigns for the entire U.S. Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. DeSiena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 For all of the harm that alcohol and tobacco has caused, and will cause, it would not bother me in the least to ‘ban’ it. Banning substances however, usually drives users underground with all of the bad problems that goes all with that. The prior poster suggested legalizing Meth – tongue in cheek I am sure – but goes on to say that legalizing it could help get control of it. I would not vote for that. Others, might vote for that. I also will not vote to legalize any other substances that some term ’ recreational’ drugs and that includes marijuana. That is me. Others will do what they will. As for those substances that are now considered legal I see no harm in taxing them to pay for the harm they cause. s. fuchs dc From: deadmed [mailto:deadmed@...] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:18 AM Sharron Fuchs; Subject: RE: Re: thanks... Meth is not recreational and it is a scourge. It and others like it should NOT be legal. Period. The evidence supports it's Illegalization. You do support legalization of mild recreational drugs unless you believe that alcohol should not be legal. Lumping everything together as " recreational " or " illegal drugs " does our country a huge disservice. Lets recognize whats harmful and what is in fact extremely mild despite their current legal status. There are substances that are far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco and most over the counter medications that are criminalized mostly due to the fear based thinking of a society 70-100 years ago. The money spent on this criminalization is absurd, hypocritical and inhumane. Lets not continue this stereotypical thinking. Lets break it down. Look at the evidence. This country needs to get over it. If there are substances that people do use for recreation that are currently less harmful than substances that already have legalization, then there is a flaw in the system of thought and law. What is currently happening is that when people do come armed with the evidence and advocate the usage and legalization of a mild recreational substance, they are chastised for wanting to " Legalize Drugs " or " Endanger our children. " These blanketed statements halt all real thinking and cause a voter to reflexively say " I don't advocate the legalization of drugs " and then the same dinosaur type of thinking and law persists for another 70 years. Who amongst us looks back at prohibition of alcohol and thinks " yea, that was a good idea. " ? Somehow society finally overcame the stigmatism. They will again. ph Medlin, DC Spine Tree Chiropractic 1627 NE Alberta St. Portland, OR 97211 Re: Re: thanks... Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco? In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died. In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000. WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR! Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far! History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their presidential campaigns for the entire U.S. Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. DeSiena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I totally respect your stance sharon. Legalizing meth to simply "get control of it" is absurd. Why? Cuz it's dangerous stuff. Legalizing something because there is no reason to illegalize it just makes sense. I'm glad you mentioned marijuana because this is a perfect example. It is less dangerous than alcohol, tobacco Tylenol you name it and yet is deemed illegal. Is it dangerous? Absolutely not. The most compelling argument against it is that it is a "gateway drug". Now that's also absurd. May i ask why you would not be for legalization of such a plant? The benefits of its legalization seems outweigh the negatives by not a little. ph Medlin, DCSpine Tree Chiropractic1627 NE Alberta St.Portland, OR 97211 Re: Re: thanks... Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco? In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died. In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000. WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR! Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far! History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their presidential campaigns for the entire U.S. Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. DeSiena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Marijuana has many abusers of it, not as a ‘gateway’ drug specifically, but abuse of it by itself. I would not want to vote for its legalization. Decriminalization of it – small penalty for small amounts – is as far as I would go. s. fuchs dc From: deadmed [mailto:deadmed@...] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:53 PM ; Sharron Fuchs Subject: Re: Re: thanks... I totally respect your stance sharon. Legalizing meth to simply " get control of it " is absurd. Why? Cuz it's dangerous stuff. Legalizing something because there is no reason to illegalize it just makes sense. I'm glad you mentioned marijuana because this is a perfect example. It is less dangerous than alcohol, tobacco Tylenol you name it and yet is deemed illegal. Is it dangerous? Absolutely not. The most compelling argument against it is that it is a " gateway drug " . Now that's also absurd. May i ask why you would not be for legalization of such a plant? The benefits of its legalization seems outweigh the negatives by not a little. ph Medlin, DC Spine Tree Chiropractic 1627 NE Alberta St. Portland, OR 97211 Re: Re: thanks... Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco? In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died. In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000. WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR! Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far! History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their presidential campaigns for the entire U.S. Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. DeSiena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Here's a nice little summary page of literature on medical marijuana:  http://medmjscience.org/Pages/science.htmlAlso see Drug Policy Alliance research page:  http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/litigators/medical/research/index.cfmI particularly like the way one research group summarized cannabis, as "the aspirin of the 21st century." For what it's worth...  http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/ethan072605.cfm Sears, DCNW PDX On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:17 AM, deadmed wrote:  Meth is not recreational and it is a scourge. It and others like it should NOT be legal. Period. The evidence supports it's Illegalization. You do support legalization of mild recreational drugs unless you believe that alcohol should not be legal. Lumping everything together as "recreational" or "illegal drugs"does our country a huge disservice. Lets recognize whats harmful and what is in fact extremely mild despite their current legal status. There are substances that are far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco and most over the counter medications that are criminalized mostly due to the fear based thinking of a society 70-100 years ago. The money spent on this criminalization is absurd, hypocritical and inhumane. Lets not continue this stereotypical thinking. Lets break it down. Look at the evidence. This country needs to get over it. If there are substances that people do use for recreation that are currently less harmful than substances that already have legalization, then there is a flaw in the system of thought and law. What is currently happening is that when people do come armed with the evidence and advocate the usage and legalization of a mild recreational substance, they are chastised for wanting to "Legalize Drugs" or "Endanger our children." These blanketed statements halt all real thinking and cause a voter to reflexively say "I don't advocate the legalization of drugs" and then the same dinosaur type of thinking and law persists for another 70 years.  Who amongst us looks back at prohibition of alcohol and thinks "yea, that was a good idea." ? Somehow society finally overcame the stigmatism. They will again.  ph Medlin, DCSpine Tree Chiropractic1627 NE Alberta St.Portland, OR 97211 RE: Re: thanks...Many , many people have suggested exactly what you say. But not me. I don’t advocate legalizing ‘recreational ‘ drugs.s. fuchs dcFrom: Annette Simard [mailto:drsimardearthlink (DOT) net] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:12 PMSharron FuchsCc: Subject: Re: Re: thanks...Lets make methamphetamine legal and give subsidized prescriptions to all the addicts and have them publicly fill that prescription so everyone can watch the harm that drug does to the addict. It could stop the recruitment of more addicts by the illegal and creepy manufacturors, stop the importation of the drug from Mexico, and publicly identify the addicts so people know who to keep their kids away from.We can pay for it with a constitutionally added tax on sugar and synthetic sweeteners.AnnetteOn Friday, October 19, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Sharron Fuchs wrote:The damage and costs are huge that is why I think those who choose to use should pay for the consequences. Five years ago while in NYC I was astounded that a pack of cigs was over $7 ! And people complain about Oregon. Go figure. Even if a tax took off just a small portion of the premium burden from others that would be fine with me.  s. fuchs dc <image.tiff>From: [mailto: ] On Behalf OfadesienajunoSent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:52 PMpdxchiroguy Cc: Sharron Fuchs; Subject: Re: Re: thanks... Do you know the damage and costs caused by tobacco?   In China 2,000,000 secondhand smokers have died.In the U.S. every year second hand smoke kills 50,000.WHO says 5,000,000 will die from smoking THIS YEAR!Smoking is the world's worst healthcare issue by far!History shows us the most effective way to reduce the smoking rate is raise the price. Some current smokers quit with the increased cost. The increased cost keeps more kids from smoking. If you do not smoke by 18 years old you probably will not start. The tobacco industry does not want decreased sales. It must replace its loyal dead customers. The tobacco companies are investing $10 million to have Measure 50 fail. Hillary and Obama only have $30 million for their presidential campaigns for the entire U.S.Please vote to save lives and care for the kids. DeSiena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.