Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.

Portland continues its world-leading innovations.

https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/

Some background on all that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human interaction,
> advanced conflict resolution technique.
>
> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>
> Some background on all that:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk

It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the phrase
"Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing every drug..."

I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that decriminalizing was
wise. Perhaps I was confused about your position.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>
>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>
>> Some background on all that:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>
> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
> every drug..."
>
> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
> position.
>

I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.

Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
that would change as in our cities, especially one just
south of here, you can see people tapping on their
telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
while driving now.

Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
a workable solution.

Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
should dissolve the State and select a new population.

I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
best path out.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>
>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>
>>> Some background on all that:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>
>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>> every drug..."
>>
>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>> position.
>>
>
>I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>
>Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>while driving now.
>
>Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>a workable solution.
>
>Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>
>I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>best path out.

Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
So, the law was repealed and today the country is not inundated with
drunks.
What would be the result of repealing the drug laws?

Or alternately do what Singapore does - execution for drug sellers.
U.S. drug use - 1.04%, Singapore - 0.004%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:00:24 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>
>Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>
>https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>
>Some background on all that:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk

Good argument for carrying a gun when bicycling.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>
>I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>best path out.

+1

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 06:08:01 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>best path out.
>
>+1

I came across something that really makes one wonder about government
agencies.

"Staff members at the Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended
new safety rules for infant rockers Wednesday"

The post states that "Staff at the Consumer Product Safety Commission
recommended new safety rules for infant rockers on Wednesday, saying
the popular product was linked to 11 deaths from 2011 to 2022. "

The CDC has it that there are about 3.5 million live births annually
in the U.S. so about 28,599,000 births in 11 years, if which 11 died
in their rocker....

So, of course we need to establish rules and standards for this
problem.

One assumes that a committee will be formed, expert witnesses
questioned, further studies of the problem made and all legal avenues
explored. Could one assume a year's work? More?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/14/2023 1:32 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 1:32:02 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>
>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>
>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>
>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>> every drug..."
>>>
>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>> position.
>>>
>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>
>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>> while driving now.
>>
>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>> a workable solution.
>>
>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>
>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>> best path out.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
> Your confusion is an illustration of the hard fact that not reading fiction limits your horizons. My late friend Richard Condon wrote a bitterly funny novel, MILE HIGH, demonstrating that Prohibition was invented, financed and extended by a businessman as a profit centre. It was said, not by Condon though that I know of, that Eddie West was a portrait of the Kennedy paterfamilias, who made his fortune (and political connections) on Prohibition.
>>
> I imagine the Mexican drug cartels have an entire laundry for the money they pay legislators in the US not, repeat not, to legalise any drug.
>>
> Unlike you I have a firm opinion on legalising drugs. It should be every adult's own choice whether he kills himself slowly by partaking of drugs: the ban on drugs is therefore an assault on his birthright. The minute drugs are legalised, the cartels become surplus to requirements, and crime is instantly reduced to petty thefts. That's why a whole establishment is against legalisation -- it would interfere in an established business. Democrats of course don't want want drugs legalised because it would put their voters out of business.
>>
> Andre Jute
> Just the fax, mam.
>>

A priori, I am with you.

Consider our present situation in which an armed robber is
considered unpunishable due to his 'medical infirmity' of
being a junkie. Any solutions? Not in this population.

As the economists say, one might easily make fish soup from
an aquarium. It's hard to reverse.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Am 14.09.2023 um 14:49 schrieb AMuzi:
> On 9/14/2023 1:32 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 1:32:02 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>
>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>
>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>
>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>> every drug..."
>>>>
>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>
>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>> while driving now.
>>>
>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>> a workable solution.
>>>
>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>
>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>> best path out.
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>
>> Your confusion is an illustration of the hard fact that not reading
>> fiction limits your horizons. My late friend Richard Condon wrote a
>> bitterly funny novel, MILE HIGH, demonstrating that Prohibition was
>> invented, financed and extended by a businessman as a profit centre.
>> It was said, not by Condon though that I know of, that Eddie West was
>> a portrait of the Kennedy paterfamilias, who made his fortune (and
>> political connections) on Prohibition.
>>>
>> I imagine the Mexican drug cartels have an entire laundry for the
>> money they pay legislators in the US not, repeat not, to legalise any
>> drug.
>>>
>> Unlike you I have a firm opinion on legalising drugs. It should be
>> every adult's own choice whether he kills himself slowly by partaking
>> of drugs: the ban on drugs is therefore an assault on his birthright.
>> The minute drugs are legalised, the cartels become surplus to
>> requirements, and crime is instantly reduced to petty thefts. That's
>> why a whole establishment is against legalisation -- it would
>> interfere in an established business. Democrats of course don't want
>> want drugs legalised because it would put their voters out of business.
>>>
>> Andre Jute
>> Just the fax, mam.
>>>
>
> A priori, I am with you.
>
> Consider our present situation in which an armed robber is considered
> unpunishable due to his 'medical infirmity' of being a junkie. Any
> solutions? Not in this population.

This predicament is solvable by inventing 'secure treament facilities'.
While this person is medically infirm, they are a danger to the outside
world and must not be let loose in public. Yet a non-voluntary
treatment is not considered a 'punishment'.

Rolf

On 9/14/2023 8:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 14.09.2023 um 14:49 schrieb AMuzi:
>> On 9/14/2023 1:32 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 1:32:02 AM UTC+1,
>>> AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>
>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>
>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about
>>>>> your
>>>>> position.
>>>>>
>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years)
>>>> Heroin
>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking
>>>> bongs
>>>> while driving now.
>>>>
>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German
>>>> regime, we
>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>
>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>> best path out.
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>
>>> Your confusion is an illustration of the hard fact that
>>> not reading fiction limits your horizons. My late friend
>>> Richard Condon wrote a bitterly funny novel, MILE HIGH,
>>> demonstrating that Prohibition was invented, financed and
>>> extended by a businessman as a profit centre. It was
>>> said, not by Condon though that I know of, that Eddie
>>> West was a portrait of the Kennedy paterfamilias, who
>>> made his fortune (and political connections) on Prohibition.
>>>>
>>> I imagine the Mexican drug cartels have an entire laundry
>>> for the money they pay legislators in the US not, repeat
>>> not, to legalise any drug.
>>>>
>>> Unlike you I have a firm opinion on legalising drugs. It
>>> should be every adult's own choice whether he kills
>>> himself slowly by partaking of drugs: the ban on drugs is
>>> therefore an assault on his birthright. The minute drugs
>>> are legalised, the cartels become surplus to
>>> requirements, and crime is instantly reduced to petty
>>> thefts. That's why a whole establishment is against
>>> legalisation -- it would interfere in an established
>>> business. Democrats of course don't want want drugs
>>> legalised because it would put their voters out of business.
>>>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Just the fax, mam.
>>>>
>>
>> A priori, I am with you.
>>
>> Consider our present situation in which an armed robber is
>> considered unpunishable due to his 'medical infirmity' of
>> being a junkie. Any solutions? Not in this population.
>
> This predicament is solvable by inventing 'secure treament
> facilities'.
> While this person is medically infirm, they are a danger to
> the outside world and must not be let loose in public.  Yet
> a non-voluntary treatment is not considered a 'punishment'.
>
> Rolf
>
Nice idea. Good luck with that.
And it's only one of many barriers to a civil society:

https://nypost.com/2023/09/13/authorities-arrest-30-for-drug-trafficking-on-long-island/

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Am 14.09.2023 um 15:47 schrieb AMuzi:
> On 9/14/2023 8:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 14.09.2023 um 14:49 schrieb AMuzi:
>>> On 9/14/2023 1:32 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 1:32:02 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>>>> while driving now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>>> best path out.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>>
>>>> Your confusion is an illustration of the hard fact that not reading
>>>> fiction limits your horizons. My late friend Richard Condon wrote a
>>>> bitterly funny novel, MILE HIGH, demonstrating that Prohibition was
>>>> invented, financed and extended by a businessman as a profit centre.
>>>> It was said, not by Condon though that I know of, that Eddie West
>>>> was a portrait of the Kennedy paterfamilias, who made his fortune
>>>> (and political connections) on Prohibition.
>>>>>
>>>> I imagine the Mexican drug cartels have an entire laundry for the
>>>> money they pay legislators in the US not, repeat not, to legalise
>>>> any drug.
>>>>>
>>>> Unlike you I have a firm opinion on legalising drugs. It should be
>>>> every adult's own choice whether he kills himself slowly by
>>>> partaking of drugs: the ban on drugs is therefore an assault on his
>>>> birthright. The minute drugs are legalised, the cartels become
>>>> surplus to requirements, and crime is instantly reduced to petty
>>>> thefts. That's why a whole establishment is against legalisation --
>>>> it would interfere in an established business. Democrats of course
>>>> don't want want drugs legalised because it would put their voters
>>>> out of business.
>>>>>
>>>> Andre Jute
>>>> Just the fax, mam.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> A priori, I am with you.
>>>
>>> Consider our present situation in which an armed robber is considered
>>> unpunishable due to his 'medical infirmity' of being a junkie. Any
>>> solutions? Not in this population.
>>
>> This predicament is solvable by inventing 'secure treament facilities'.
>> While this person is medically infirm, they are a danger to the
>> outside world and must not be let loose in public.  Yet a
>> non-voluntary treatment is not considered a 'punishment'.
>>
> Nice idea. Good luck with that.

Actually, that's the legal situation in Germany for people who committed
violent crimes in a state of 'mental incapactiy' (I'm not aware whether
drug abuse inducted temporary mental incapacity counts as well). It
strongly reduces the number of defendants pleading in this direction
because there's no pardon, you're 'in' until a doctor certifies you cured.

> And it's only one of many barriers to a civil society:
> https://nypost.com/2023/09/13/authorities-arrest-30-for-drug-trafficking-on-long-island/

Obviously, you can only apply those punishments specified by the law.

On 9/14/2023 8:59 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 14.09.2023 um 15:47 schrieb AMuzi:
>> On 9/14/2023 8:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 14.09.2023 um 14:49 schrieb AMuzi:
>>>> On 9/14/2023 1:32 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 1:32:02 AM UTC+1,
>>>>> AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting
>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after
>>>>>>> hearing the
>>>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of
>>>>>>> decriminalizing
>>>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused
>>>>>>> about your
>>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years)
>>>>>> Heroin
>>>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking
>>>>>> bongs
>>>>>> while driving now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere,
>>>>>> is not
>>>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German
>>>>>> regime, we
>>>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not
>>>>>> know the
>>>>>> best path out.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your confusion is an illustration of the hard fact that
>>>>> not reading fiction limits your horizons. My late
>>>>> friend Richard Condon wrote a bitterly funny novel,
>>>>> MILE HIGH, demonstrating that Prohibition was invented,
>>>>> financed and extended by a businessman as a profit
>>>>> centre. It was said, not by Condon though that I know
>>>>> of, that Eddie West was a portrait of the Kennedy
>>>>> paterfamilias, who made his fortune (and political
>>>>> connections) on Prohibition.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I imagine the Mexican drug cartels have an entire
>>>>> laundry for the money they pay legislators in the US
>>>>> not, repeat not, to legalise any drug.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike you I have a firm opinion on legalising drugs.
>>>>> It should be every adult's own choice whether he kills
>>>>> himself slowly by partaking of drugs: the ban on drugs
>>>>> is therefore an assault on his birthright. The minute
>>>>> drugs are legalised, the cartels become surplus to
>>>>> requirements, and crime is instantly reduced to petty
>>>>> thefts. That's why a whole establishment is against
>>>>> legalisation -- it would interfere in an established
>>>>> business. Democrats of course don't want want drugs
>>>>> legalised because it would put their voters out of
>>>>> business.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Andre Jute
>>>>> Just the fax, mam.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A priori, I am with you.
>>>>
>>>> Consider our present situation in which an armed robber
>>>> is considered unpunishable due to his 'medical
>>>> infirmity' of being a junkie. Any solutions? Not in this
>>>> population.
>>>
>>> This predicament is solvable by inventing 'secure
>>> treament facilities'.
>>> While this person is medically infirm, they are a danger
>>> to the outside world and must not be let loose in
>>> public.  Yet a non-voluntary treatment is not considered
>>> a 'punishment'.
>>>
>> Nice idea. Good luck with that.
>
> Actually, that's the legal situation in Germany for people
> who committed violent crimes in a state of 'mental
> incapactiy' (I'm not aware whether drug abuse inducted
> temporary mental incapacity counts as well).  It strongly
> reduces the number of defendants pleading in this direction
> because there's no pardon, you're 'in' until a doctor
> certifies you cured.
>
>> And it's only one of many barriers to a civil society:
>> https://nypost.com/2023/09/13/authorities-arrest-30-for-drug-trafficking-on-long-island/
>
> Obviously, you can only apply those punishments specified by
> the law.
>

So when too many arrests interfere with the cash flow from
cartels to politicians, just change the law, as recently in
New York State.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>
>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>
>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>
>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>> every drug..."
>>>
>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>> position.
>>>
>>
>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>
>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>> while driving now.
>>
>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>> a workable solution.
>>
>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>
>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>> best path out.
>
> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.

The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.

I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
is much less common. Or so I've read.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>
>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>
>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>
>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>> every drug..."
>>>>
>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>
>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>> while driving now.
>>>
>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>> a workable solution.
>>>
>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>
>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>> best path out.
>>
>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>
>The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>
>I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>is much less common. Or so I've read.

More drinking today than late 1800s

https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 23:46:13 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>
>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>
>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>>> position.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>>> while driving now.
>>>>
>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>
>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>> best path out.
>>>
>>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>>
>>The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>>a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>>effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>>read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>>
>>I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>>problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>>astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>>out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>>is much less common. Or so I've read.
>
>More drinking today than late 1800s
>
>
>https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/

And there are several sites that provide that information. There is an
old saying "look before you leap" that probably should be applied by
those that want to be taken seriously (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/14/2023 10:46 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>
>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>
>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>>> position.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>>> while driving now.
>>>>
>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>
>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>> best path out.
>>>
>>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>>
>> The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>> a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>> effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>> read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>>
>> I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>> problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>> astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>> out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>> drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>> is much less common. Or so I've read.
>
> More drinking today than late 1800s
>
>
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/

And we're #1:

https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/ExcessDrink

Or #50 depending on viewpoint.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:58:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/14/2023 10:46 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>>>> while driving now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>>> best path out.
>>>>
>>>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>>>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>>>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>>>
>>> The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>>> a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>>> effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>>> read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>>>
>>> I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>>> problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>>> astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>>> out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>> drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>>> is much less common. Or so I've read.
>>
>> More drinking today than late 1800s
>>
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/
>
>And we're #1:
>
>https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/ExcessDrink
>
>Or #50 depending on viewpoint.

But not particularly excessive compared to other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita

Certainly lower then most European countries.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:58:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/14/2023 10:46 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>>>> while driving now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>>> best path out.
>>>>
>>>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>>>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>>>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>>>
>>> The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>>> a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>>> effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>>> read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>>>
>>> I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>>> problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>>> astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>>> out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>> drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>>> is much less common. Or so I've read.
>>
>> More drinking today than late 1800s
>>
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/
>
>And we're #1:

I'm not part of that "we."

>https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/ExcessDrink
>
>Or #50 depending on viewpoint.

That's all about excessive drinking, as in loosing inhibitions. As
for me, what few inhibitions I have, I need to retain.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:17:58 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:58:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 9/14/2023 10:46 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>>>>> every drug..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>>>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>>>>> while driving now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>>>> a workable solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>>>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>>>> best path out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>>>>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>>>>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>>>>
>>>> The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>>>> a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>>>> effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>>>> read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>>>>
>>>> I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>>>> problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>>>> astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>>>> out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>>> drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>>>> is much less common. Or so I've read.
>>>
>>> More drinking today than late 1800s
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/
>>
>>And we're #1:
>
>I'm not part of that "we."
>
>>https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/ExcessDrink
>>
>>Or #50 depending on viewpoint.
>
>That's all about excessive drinking, as in loosing inhibitions. As
>for me, what few inhibitions I have, I need to retain.

The report seems rather unreal as it qualifies 15 drinks a week as
excessive. That is 2 a day and 3 on Saturday without further
definition. Is two glasses of beer a day, one with dinner and one with
supper, and an extra one on Saturday night, really excessive drinking?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 18:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:01:54?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 23:46:13 -0400, Catrike Rider
>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> ><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>> >>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Some background on all that:
>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>> >>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>> >>>>> every drug..."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>> >>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>> >>>>> position.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>> >>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>> >>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>> >>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>> >>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>> >>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>> >>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>> >>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>> >>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>> >>>> while driving now.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>> >>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>> >>>> a workable solution.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>> >>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>> >>>> best path out.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>> >>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>> >>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>> >>
>> >>The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>> >>a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>> >>effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>> >>read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>> >>
>> >>I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>> >>problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>> >>astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>> >>out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>> >>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>> >>is much less common. Or so I've read.
>> >
>> >More drinking today than late 1800s
>> >
>> >
>> >https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/
>> And there are several sites that provide that information. There is an
>> old saying "look before you leap" that probably should be applied by
>> those that want to be taken seriously (:-)
>
>Perhaps you should supply a link that spoke to what I actually said, rather than something that was merely
>related. I said " Supposedly it was astonishingly common for men to spend tons of
>time in bars and wander out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness is much less common."

>About how common such problems were pre-prohibition, see
>https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition
>
>Other sources point out that today we tend to drink in homes. Back then, men drank in saloons.
>A lot.
>
>If I remembered anything wrong, it was that the peak of drinking may have been in the
>early 1800s, not the late 1800s. There's some data at
>https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/
>
>And since this is Usenet, let me add: I'm _not_ advocating a return to alcohol prohibition.
>Please don't crank up your straw man arguments.
>
>- Frank Krygowski
>

Lots of undocumented data.... That's pretty common with Krygowski

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 22:57:06 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 18:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:01:54?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 23:46:13 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> ><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> >>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>> >>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>> >>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>> >>>>> every drug..."
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>> >>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>> >>>>> position.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>> >>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>> >>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>> >>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>> >>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>> >>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>> >>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>> >>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>> >>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>> >>>> while driving now.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>> >>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>> >>>> a workable solution.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>> >>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>> >>>> best path out.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>>> >>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>>> >>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>>> >>
>>> >>The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>>> >>a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>>> >>effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>>> >>read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>>> >>
>>> >>I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>>> >>problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>>> >>astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>>> >>out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>> >>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>>> >>is much less common. Or so I've read.
>>> >
>>> >More drinking today than late 1800s
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/
>>> And there are several sites that provide that information. There is an
>>> old saying "look before you leap" that probably should be applied by
>>> those that want to be taken seriously (:-)
>>
>>Perhaps you should supply a link that spoke to what I actually said, rather than something that was merely
>>related. I said " Supposedly it was astonishingly common for men to spend tons of
>>time in bars and wander out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness is much less common."
>
>
>
>>About how common such problems were pre-prohibition, see
>>https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition
>>
>>Other sources point out that today we tend to drink in homes. Back then, men drank in saloons.
>>A lot.
>>
>>If I remembered anything wrong, it was that the peak of drinking may have been in the
>>early 1800s, not the late 1800s. There's some data at
>>https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/
>>
>>And since this is Usenet, let me add: I'm _not_ advocating a return to alcohol prohibition.
>>Please don't crank up your straw man arguments.
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski
>>
>
>Lots of undocumented data.... That's pretty common with Krygowski

Well the site referenced was sub-titled "Voices & Opinion" Not "news"
or "data". (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

>
A master brewer I worked with in the design and development of new beers told me that 9 (British) pints of stout aka porter (think of Guinness) per day contains enough food value to sustain life.
>
Andre Jute
Amazing what you can learn if you keep your ears open.
>

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 10:33:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 22:57:06 -0400, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 18:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:01:54?AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 23:46:13 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:04:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> ><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On 9/13/2023 10:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> >>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 19:31:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 9/13/2023 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 9/13/2023 4:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> Advanced cycling skills amidst traffic, interesting human
>>>> >>>>>> interaction, advanced conflict resolution technique.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Portland continues its world-leading innovations.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/user/Lonely_Recording8463/comments/16hszkf/crazy_cyclist_rides_through_traffic_in_portland/
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Some background on all that:
>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> It's odd - I stopped watching the second after hearing the
>>>> >>>>> phrase "Perhaps one of the side effects of decriminalizing
>>>> >>>>> every drug..."
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I say odd because you, Andrew, had convinced me that
>>>> >>>>> decriminalizing was wise. Perhaps I was confused about your
>>>> >>>>> position.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I've admitted here for many years that I just don't know.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Clearly prohibition does not work in that 100 years on (I
>>>> >>>> have made this statement here for about twenty years) Heroin
>>>> >>>> is cheaper and more pure than ever and can be delivered
>>>> >>>> anywhere faster than a pizza. This is not a successful
>>>> >>>> policy. I was asked by a customer Monday if I thought
>>>> >>>> Wisconsin would ever legalize marijuana. I asked him what
>>>> >>>> that would change as in our cities, especially one just
>>>> >>>> south of here, you can see people tapping on their
>>>> >>>> telephones (which is illegal when driving) and smoking bongs
>>>> >>>> while driving now.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Conversely no policy whatsoever, given the moral fiber or
>>>> >>>> lack thereof in Portland, Seattle, SF and elsewhere, is not
>>>> >>>> a workable solution.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Perhaps as was wryly suggested of the East German regime, we
>>>> >>>> should dissolve the State and select a new population.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I am concerned for my country and sincerely do not know the
>>>> >>>> best path out.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Well... The U.S. experimented with prohibition from 1922 until 1933.
>>>> >>> It didn't work, in fact some sources estimate that consumption of
>>>> >>> alcoholic beverages actually increased during this period.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>The "some sources" bit is important. Other sources claim that there was
>>>> >>a huge drop in alcohol consumption immediately after the law took
>>>> >>effect, followed by some increase in consumption; but from what I've
>>>> >>read, consumption did not rise to pre-prohibition levels.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I've also read that we moderns don't realize how pervasive alcohol
>>>> >>problems used to be in, say, the late 1800s. Supposedly it was
>>>> >>astonishingly common for men to spend tons of time in bars and wander
>>>> >>out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>>> >>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness
>>>> >>is much less common. Or so I've read.
>>>> >
>>>> >More drinking today than late 1800s
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/
>>>> And there are several sites that provide that information. There is an
>>>> old saying "look before you leap" that probably should be applied by
>>>> those that want to be taken seriously (:-)
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should supply a link that spoke to what I actually said, rather than something that was merely
>>>related. I said " Supposedly it was astonishingly common for men to spend tons of
>>>time in bars and wander out drunk. Prohibition is credited with changing that scene. Today most
>>>drinking happens at home or the homes of friends, and public drunkenness is much less common."
>>
>>
>>
>>>About how common such problems were pre-prohibition, see
>>>https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition
>>>
>>>Other sources point out that today we tend to drink in homes. Back then, men drank in saloons.
>>>A lot.
>>>
>>>If I remembered anything wrong, it was that the peak of drinking may have been in the
>>>early 1800s, not the late 1800s. There's some data at
>>>https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/
>>>
>>>And since this is Usenet, let me add: I'm _not_ advocating a return to alcohol prohibition.
>>>Please don't crank up your straw man arguments.
>>>
>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>
>>Lots of undocumented data.... That's pretty common with Krygowski
>
>Well the site referenced was sub-titled "Voices & Opinion" Not "news"
>or "data". (:-)

....and then there's PBS. Some believe it to be gospel.