On May 2, 3:25 pm, Joel  wrote:
> M_P  wrote:

> >> I don't even need to specifically refute why you're wrong.  If anyone
> >> doesn't get it, they are fucking retarded.
> >[…]
> >> If you don't
> >> know that, you are wayyy beneath my level on drug knowledge, and you
> >> can go educate yourself.
>
> >Coward.
>
> As if you've presented anything big to support your points?  Please.

Since I haven't presented anything "big" by your self-serving
standards, you can present nothing at all? Cowardly and stupid.

> >> >I also said the part you replaced with "..." above -- which was in
> >> >fact the meat of my statement.
>
> >> Yeah, but that part was irrelevant, as I already said.
>
> >As you already claimed without a shred of support.
>
> The "..." part said what you believe is *not* the reason it was
> banned.

So you claim.

> >> > you'd still have an account that as
> >> >it stands is completely consistent with coercive conformism.
>
> >> No, it isn't.  I already pointed out that people could easily buy LSD
> >> illicitly.  It's an unenforceable law, so there's no coercion.
>
> >Nonsense. Anyone punished under that law is coerced.
>
> Most LSD busts are of dealers, not users.

But not all -- ergo, there is coercion.
>
> >> >"Redneck fascist bullshit" differs from "coercive conformism" how?
>
> >> Because rednecks are stupid enough to think they can tell everyone
> >> what to do.  […]
>
> >And the government that passed these bans didn't think so?
>
> I certainly hope they weren't that naive.

Your hopes mean squat. If they didn't think the laws would be
effective, why did they bother? Just so they could be anal-retentively
consistent?