FT205: “Liberals reconcile conflicting positions with imaginary logic.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 17th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

We have Complex Numbers because there is no such thing as a Square-Root of a Negative Number

If we graph AC voltage and AC current we would see two sine waves.  Graphs that rise from zero, reach a peak, fall back through zero, reach a nadir and then rise back up to zero.  Which repeats over and over.  And when we have voltage and current we get power.  If we pick a point in time on our AC voltage and current graphs we can multiply the value for the current by the value of the voltage to arrive at a value for power.  If these two sine waves are on top of each other we will get the highest value for power.  If one graph moves ahead or behind the other (so we can see two sine waves instead of one) we will have a value less than the highest power.

Picture two capital ‘S’s lying on their side.  So they look like one period of a sine wave.  And one is on top of the other so we only see one.  If we draw a vertical line through the highest point on these ‘sine waves’ both ‘S’s will have the same highest value.  Let’s call that value ‘3’.  Giving us a power of 9 (3 X 3).  Now let’s move one ‘sine wave’ to the right.  And look at that same vertical line.  With the one ‘sine wave’ moved they won’t have the same value at that point.  One will be less than the other.  Because the maximum value for that ‘sine wave’ occurs to the right of the maximum value of the other.  Let’s say the value for the moved ‘sine wave’ at that point is now 2.  Giving us a power of 6 (2 X 3).

When the power and current are 100% in phase we get our maximum power.  When they move out of phase we get a value of power less than the maximum.  Even though the voltage and current waves are unchanged.  The degree they are out of phase is called the phase angle.  And it’s a problem for power companies.  Because the typical electric meter only measures part of the power a customer uses.  The real or active power.  Not the reactive power.  And it’s a combination of the active and reactive power that gives us apparent power.  What the power companies produce.  In the ideal world (where the voltage and current sine waves are on top of each other perfectly in phase) reactive power is zero and apparent power equals active power.  Mathematically we express this with complex numbers.  Where there is a real part (the active part).  And an imaginary part (the reactive part).  Where i2 = -1.  Something that can’t happen in the realm of real numbers.  As there is no such thing as a square-root of a negative number.  But it is this use of imaginary numbers that let’s engineers build the world around us.

Criminalizing Cigarette Smoking plus Decriminalizing Marijuana Smoking Equals more Democrat Votes

Complicated, yes?  Few of us understand this.  But that’s okay.  We don’t have to.  Engineers are very smart people that can do remarkable things mathematically to model and build our world.  And when they do that world is a better place.  Which is all most of us care about.  So imaginary numbers may be a foreign concept to most.  But they provide a very ordered and sensical world.  Unlike other imaginary things.  Like unicorns.  Fairies.  And imaginary logic.

Liberals are high practitioners of imaginary logic.  On its face it seems like gibberish.  Illogical.  And nonsensical.  But like complex numbers it’s the combination of these nonsensical parts that serve to advance an agenda.  For example, in their ideal world everyone would abort an unplanned and/or unwanted child.  While also saying that same-sex couples should be able to adopt and raise children.  But how can a same-sex couple adopt a child if no unplanned or unwanted child is given up for adoption?  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where unfettered abortion plus same-sex adoption equals more Democrat votes.

Liberals have banned cigarette smoking wherever they could.  First there were no smoking sections in restaurants.  Then they banned smoking entirely from restaurants.  Once upon a time people could smoke in the workplace.  Then they forced them into smoking lounges.  Then outside of the building.  And finally a minimum distance away from the doorway.  Because smoking will kill you.  The people around you breathing in second-hand smoke.  And the people breathing in the stink you leave behind after smoking (third-hand smoke).  Smoke in the lungs is the number one killer in America. It is so horrible that no one should be able to smoke.  No one should be able to advertise smoking.  Even the cigarette packages shouldn’t be pretty as that may entice kids to start smoking.  But liberals have no problem with people smoking unfiltered marijuana cigarettes.  With marijuana they take the exact opposite position than they do with cigarettes.  Go ahead and smoke.  You aren’t hurting anyone.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking plus decriminalizing marijuana smoking equals more Democrat votes.

Hollywood Liberals hate Cigarettes and Guns but love them in their Movies

Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein recently said on the Howard Stern radio show that he hates the National Rifle Association (NRA).  And is going to make a movie to destroy them.  For he thinks guns in America are a horrible thing.  He hates them.  And hates people having them.  But he loves them when they are in his movies.  And has become quite wealthy glorifying horrific gun violence.  If you are unfamiliar with some of the movies he produced you can look them up on IMDB.  Here are just a few that are filled with over the top and very graphic gun violence (as well as sword violence, knife violence, blunt force violence, etc.).  Django Unchained (2012).  Grindhouse (2007).  Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003).  Gangs of New York (2002).  Pulp Fiction (1994).  True Romance (1993).  To name a few.  This is how the View content advisory under Violence and Gore begins for Django Unchained: “Note that most of the violence in this film are [sic] over the top and very graphic.”

Harvey Weinstein is a liberal Democrat.  Who believes the only reason why people are using guns to shoot a lot of people is because those guns are for sale.  Cigarette ads and pretty packaging will entice kids to start smoking.  But showing wholesale violence like in his movies would never encourage a kid to pick up a gun?  For that matter, the next time you see one of these movies note how many people smoke in them (or see Alcohol/Drugs/ Smoking under View content advisory on IMDB).  Having Joe Camel on a cigarette package is going to get a kid to start smoking but seeing his or her favorite movie star smoking—and making smoking look so cool—isn’t?   Of course it is.  Far more than any cigarette ad is.  Just as the vicious gun violence in these movies is desensitizing some kids to gun violence.  And is the reason why young kids are having pretend gun fights at school.  Not because they are card-carrying members of the NRA.  But because they saw it in a movie.

Liberals believe cigarettes and guns are horrible things.  And no one should touch them.  But liberal movie producers fill their movies with cigarettes and guns.  Because they are so cool and fun to watch.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking and gun ownership plus glorifying cigarette smoking and vicious gun violence (and sex and drugs) in the movies equals more Democrat votes.  Which is what imaginary logic is all about.  Democrat votes.  Which is why liberals can have conflicting positions on the same subject.  Because they don’t really care about the subject.  Or the people they harm.  They just want the power that comes with getting people to vote Democrat.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Governments turn People into Addicts to generate Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2014

Week in Review

During the days of the British Empire Great Britain had a problem.  They loved Chinese tea.  But the British had nothing the Chinese wanted in trade.  Except for one thing.  Silver.  Hard money.  Which was a problem for Britain.  They were running out of hard money.  So they came up with an ingenious way to solve that problem.  By getting as many Chinese hooked on opium as possible.  So they could trade Indian grown opium for Chinese tea.  It worked out great for the British.  But the Chinese didn’t like it.  And fought two opium wars with the British.  Which did not end well for them.

North Korea has a hard money problem, too.  And they, too, turned to drugs.  Crystal meth.  Which North Korea manufactured in state-run labs.  Destined for China.  Where they tried to get as many people addicted to crystal meth as possible.  So they can sell it in exchange for Chinese currency.  Which they could use to buy Chinese food.  To help ward off famine in North Korea.  This worked pretty well for North Korea.  But only gave China another addiction problem.

In the United States the government found other ways to raise revenue.  The first two big sources of addiction-revenue were cigarette and alcohol taxes.  But it soon proved not enough.  They then got people addicted to playing the lottery.  When that revenue proved to be insufficient they then got people addicted to casino gambling.  But government spending had grown so great that this revenue was still not enough.  So the government is looking at other things to get people addicted to (see Why Legalizing Marijuana Is a Smart Fiscal Move by Bruce Bartlett, The Fiscal Times, posted 1/3/2014 on Yahoo! News).

Perhaps the dominant factor driving marijuana legalization is the desperate search for new revenue by cash-strapped state governments. The opportunity to tax marijuana is potentially a significant source of new revenue, as well as a way of cutting spending on prisons and law enforcement. The California Secretary of State’s office, for example, estimates savings in the hundreds of millions of dollars from both factors. The following summary is from a proposed state ballot initiative in California (No. 1617)…

It is not surprising that revenue considerations should be critical in the marijuana legalization movement. That was previously the reason why cigarettes were not banned until the 1920s despite a strong nationwide movement to do so. In the wake of Prohibition, governments simply needed cigarette tax revenue too badly. And when Prohibition ended, the need for new revenue after the Great Depression decimated government budgets was a driving force.

Indeed, according to author Daniel Okrent, expectations of the revenue from taxing legal liquor were so great in 1932 that some people thought it might permit the repeal of income taxes. It’s worth remembering that in 1900, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes constituted half of all federal revenues. Indeed, the only reason Prohibition was possible in the first place was that the income tax established in 1913, which was greatly expanded by World War I, would replace the revenue lost from the liquor tax after Prohibition.

There have been no great cuts to revenue like that following Prohibition.  Government spending has just grown so great that it far exceeds the nation’s ability to pay for it with current taxes and borrowing.  So they are looking to make people addicted to marijuana to help pay for their large public sectors.  As well as their vote-buying welfare state.  And when this proves insufficient they can turn to other sources of revenue.  Such as decriminalizing and taxing heroin.  Cocaine.  Crack.  Crystal meth.  Opium.  Even prostitution.  People are already doing these things.  So they can’t be any worse than marijuana.  As long as only responsible adults indulge in these activities.  Just as only responsible adults will smoke marijuana in Colorado.  For think of the tax revenue heroin, cocaine, crack, crystal meth and opium could generate.  For those drugs are really addictive.  And just think how much old rich men would enjoy 18 year old prostitutes.  Prostitution would be a booming business to tax.  These young women could generate great tax revenue for the government by just doing what consenting adults want to do.

We could do these things to find new sources of revenue.  Or we could NOT make people addicts.  Or NOT sell women into prostitution.  Instead we could cut the size of the public sector and the welfare state.  So we can cut spending.  Which would eliminate the need to produce new tax revenue in the first place.  Allowing people to keep their hard-earned money instead of handing it over to the government.  To pay for generous pensions and retiree health care for others.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats will Condone any Bad Behavior if it advances their Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2014

Week in Review

The government has long warned us not to eat or drink things that are bad for us.  They banned Saccharin after mega doses in rats caused cancer.  They then determined that a rat’s physiology is different from humans.  And removed their ban.  They banned the use of Alar (used in apples and other fruits to provide a better harvest) when mega doses proved to be carcinogenic.  The consumption of healthy apples fell.  They told us not to eat eggs as they had cholesterol.  Even though no study showed egg cholesterol was bad for you.  So people quit eating eggs.  And many lost an excellent source of protein.  And it turned out saturated fats play a larger role in our cholesterol levels.  And that eating eggs really doesn’t affect our cholesterol levels.  So we’re eating eggs again.  Because they are good for you.

Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make large sugary beverages illegal in New York.  There have been bans on trans-fats.  They have tried to take toys out of McDonald’s Happy Meals to make them less attractive to children.  And let’s not forget the war on smoking.  They have put pictures of diseased lungs on the packaging to get us to quit.  They have made it illegal to smoke a cigarette pretty much everywhere to protect others from second-hand smoke (though no studies exist showing that there is even a risk due to second hand smoke just as there was no study showing egg cholesterol was bad for you).  They have even discussed bans on third-hand smoke (the ashtray smell you leave behind after smoking).

Government is regulating our lives to save us from ourselves.  Because we engage in behavior too risky for our own good.  Except for two behaviors.  Drugs.  As Colorado has decriminalized marijuana (without any regard to our diseased lungs, second-hand smoke or third-hand smoke).  And sex.  As they give out free birth-control to encourage our young people to have as much sex as they so desire.  And provide access to abortion when that fails.  Despite the slew of venereal diseases all that sex has given our young people.  Including AIDS (see A Resisted Pill to Prevent H.I.V. by DAVID TULLER posted 12/30/2013 on The New York Times).

Over a cup of tea at a downtown Starbucks, Michael Rubio recalled how four friends became H.I.V. positive through unprotected sex, all within a year…

The very existence of that option represents a startling turn in the too-long history of the AIDS epidemic. Many health experts hoped that the medication — Truvada, a combination of two antiviral drugs that has been used to treat H.I.V. since 2004 — would be exuberantly embraced by H.I.V.-negative gay men. Instead, Truvada has been slow to catch on as an H.I.V. preventive in the 18 months since the strategy’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration. In some quarters, the idea that healthy gay men should take a medication to prevent infection — an approach called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP — has met with hostility or indifference…

For 30 years, public health officials have aggressively promoted condom use during every sexual encounter as the only effective method, apart from abstinence, for preventing H.I.V. transmission. Still, 50,000 new infections are occurring annually in the United States; sexual transmission between men accounts for more than half of them, and a disproportionate number among African-Americans and other minorities.

Many experts hailed Truvada as an opportunity to reduce new infections among high-risk groups like young gay men, people in relationships with H.I.V.-positive partners, and prostitutes. The F.D.A. called for prescriptions to be accompanied by counseling, frequent H.I.V. testing, and continued promotion of safer sex, although research suggests that daily use of the pill alone confers close to full protection.

But a generational shift in attitudes toward H.I.V. among gay men may also be playing a role, some experts say. With advances in treatment, many younger men who did not experience the worst years of the epidemic are less fearful of the consequences of infection. Moreover, current medications can lower viral levels in H.I.V.-positive people to the point where the risk of transmission is negligible, further reducing the perceived need for PrEP among H.I.V.-negative partners…

Certainly, “condom fatigue” among gay men is real. The proportion who reported unprotected anal sex in the previous year rose to 57 percent in 2011 from 48 percent in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Obamacare will pay for AIDS and HIV treatment.  But will people with AIDS/HIV pay more for their Obamacare?  Probably not.  Smokers will pay more, though.  Despite it being easier to prevent AIDS/HIV than lung cancer from smoking.  For you can still have anal sex without being at risk for catching AIDS/HIV if you wear a condom.  But you can’t smoke without putting yourself at risk every time.  Because when you smoke you pull in that cancer-causing smoke into your lungs.  Yet as preventable as AIDS/HIV is 57% of gay men have unprotected sex.  Which you can’t define as anything but willful and dangerous behavior.

But the left has no harsh words for the gay community.  Unlike they do for smokers.  Why?  Because the gay community votes Democrat.  As do young people.  Who believe that 30% or more of the population is gay.  While a 2010 study by the Williams Institute put the number at 3.5%.  But the young believe that 3 out of every 10 people (instead of 3.5 out of 100) identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  And want to be progressive and enlightened and cool and so unlike their parents that they want to show their enlightened support for them.  Which is another reason why they vote Democrat.  In addition to the sex and drugs the Democrats encourage.

Until gay men wear condoms all of the time or abstain from willful and dangerous unprotected anal sex AIDS/HIV will spread.  (If these young gay men were in monogamous relationships they wouldn’t be spreading AIDS/HIV).  And it won’t be just in the gay community.  Thanks to bisexuals, intravenous drug users and prostitutes the disease will migrate to others who think they are being progressive and enlightened to have as much sex as the Democrats encourage them to have.  Guaranteeing a large voting block for the anti-parents (i.e., Democrats) come Election Day.  And they don’t care how many lives they destroy in the process.  But if you want to enjoy a cigarette or a big juicy burger look out.  They are coming after you and your reckless lifestyle.  Unless, of course, you’re smoking a marijuana cigarette.  And eating that big greasy burger afterward because you have the munchies.  Because there’s nothing wrong with that lifestyle.  Because you’re likely a Democrat voter.

The temperance movement took off in large part due to the STDs husbands brought home to their wives after drinking away their paychecks at the local saloon.  And then making bad decisions when drunk.  Like spending what money they didn’t spend on alcohol on prostitutes.  Bringing home syphilis to many an unsuspecting wife.  Who passed it on to their unborn children.  It was the progressives that try to put a stop to that with Prohibition.  Including women like Susan B. Anthony.  Now look at the progressives.  Who are a far cry from those who once wanted to protect women and children.  Who now champion some of the most dangerous behavior women and children can face.  Sex and drugs.  Just to win elections.  Something Susan B. Anthony would not likely approve of if she were alive today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anti-Smoking People fuming over Britain’s Failure to enforce Plain Cigarette Packaging

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2013

Week in Review

I was talking to a woman I knew who was in her 40s.  She took out a cigarette and lit up.  I asked her why she started smoking.  Was it the pretty cigarette packages?  The cigarette advertisements in her youth?  For back then the Joe Camel ads were still out.  As well as a slew of other cigarette ads.  Including cars painted up with Kool cigarette advertisements driving around town.  And the Virginia Slim ads were telling women they’ve “come a long way.”  Smoking advertisements were everywhere.  So did these things prove so attractive and irresistible that she could no longer withstand the lure of cigarette advertising?  No.  She started smoking because all her friends were smoking.

Kids want two things in life more than anything else.  To be grown-up.  And to be cool.  That’s why they start smoking.  Because smoking is only for grownups.  By law.  Which makes them look grown-up when they smoke.  Because only grownups smoke.

Then there is the cool thing.  Boys worship their rock heroes.  The guys who play their low-slung guitars with a cigarette dangling out of their mouth.  It’s just so cool looking.  Keith Richards.  Jimmy Page.  Eddie Van Halen.  Slash.  You name a guitar superstar and odds are there is a poster selling somewhere of him with a cigarette dangling from his mouth.

The stars in the movies they watch seem to all smoke.  For there is nothing cooler than a grizzled actor suffering through a stressful scene lighting up a cigarette afterwards to enjoy some soothing relaxation.  And few things are sexier than a femme fatale that seductively smokes a cigarette.  Our girls see this.  And they, too, want to be grown-up and sexy.  Which is why so many of them start smoking.  And when all of their friends are smoking, too, it just doesn’t seem like there is anything wrong with it.  And because all their friends are having sex that, too, seems okay.  It’s the softer side of peer pressure.  Well it can’t be bad if EVERYONE is doing it.

This is why this 40 something mother of 3 started smoking.  And she continues to smoke because she now enjoys it.  Like those grizzled actors in Hollywood movies.  There’s nothing like lighting up after a stressful work shift.  Even though today she is bombarded with warnings of what smoking will do to her health.  Despite anti-smoking legislation.  And the high taxes placed on cigarettes.  She still smokes.  Because she started smoking young to be cool and grown-up.  And now that she is a smoker her government attacks her with high taxes.  And legislation that ostracizes her like a leper.  Measures now coming to India (see Smoking bans, tax could save 9 million Indians: study by AFP posted 7/10/2013 on France 24).

Banning smoking in the workplace and levying a tobacco tax could prevent more than nine million deaths from cardiovascular disease in India over the next decade, according to a US study…

They found that smoke-free laws and increased tobacco taxes were the single two most effective measures, according to the study in PLoS Medicine on Tuesday.

These two measures alone would reduce heart attack deaths by six million and stroke deaths by 3.7 million, for a total of 9.7 million, over the next decade, the paper said.

The study compared five different tobacco control measures: smoke-free legislation, tobacco taxation, provision of brief cessation advice by health care providers, mass media campaigns, and advertising bans.

Interestingly, one measure is conspicuous by its absence.  This (see Delay on plain cigarette pack decision ‘sad day for child health’ by Sarah Boseley and Andrew Sparrow posted 7/12/2013 on The Guardian).

Lives will be lost as a result of the government’s decision to kick the notion of plain packaging for cigarettes into the long grass, say scientists and campaigners who accuse ministers of bowing to tobacco industry lobbying…

More than 200,000 young people under 16 start smoking every year. With advertising banned, cigarette packets are the only vehicle that companies are able to use to recruit children to the habit. The review said unadorned packs were less attractive to young people, improved the effectiveness of health warnings and reduced the numbers who mistakenly believed that some brands were safer than others.

Kids don’t start smoking because of pretty cigarette packages.  Or cigarette ads.  There are a lot of ads for kids to eat their vegetables yet many kids still resist those ads and refuse to eat their vegetables.  This has got to be the most asinine measure to get kids to stop smoking.  For if they really want to see who is at fault for getting kids to start smoking all they need to do is look into a mirror.

Liberal policies that attack traditional values and the traditional family have far more to do with kids starting smoking than Big Tobacco.  We’re giving high school kids free birth control.  Access to abortion.  And the morning-after pill.  Traditional values are ridiculed on television and in the movies.  Telling these kids that they’re not kids but grownups.  Who can make responsible decisions for themselves.  So they do.  They choose to be sexually active.  And we say we must respect their decision and not try to instill our morals on them.  Yet when they decide to start smoking we say that is wrong and blame Big Tobacco.  So much for our ‘grown-up’ children making responsible decisions.

And we’re never allowed to complain about the non-traditional behavior on television and in the movies.  Where getting stoned and having casual and consequence-free sex is now the norm.  And okay.  Our kids are seeing this.  As well as these people smoking.  They see this and want to imitate it.  Because if everyone is doing it just can’t be that bad.

If you really want to get kids NOT to start smoking then we need their heroes to stop influencing them into smoking.  We need them to be positive role models.  Not the ‘rebel against everything your parents and teachers tell you to do’ people that they are.  The bad boys.  And the naughty girls.  Who practice their art for the kids of the world to see.  And when life imitates art these stars say, “Don’t look at me.  Where are these kids’ parents?”

Not only does government endorse this behavior they facilitate it.  The liberal side of government.  The cool side of government.  Who want these kids to see how cool they are by not being like their parents or their teachers.  So they will vote for them.  And not those stuffy conservatives who don’t want them to have any fun.  Because they won’t vote for them once they wise up with some real education and real-world experience.  So they sacrifice our kids on the altar of politics.  By encouraging all kinds of bad behavior.  Like smoking.  Which they then blame on pretty cigarette packaging.  And not the societal decay they created.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It will be Easier and as Expensive to Smoke Marijuana in Colorado than Regular Cigarettes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 10th, 2013

Week in Review

The stoners, the high school and college kids and the baby boomer-hippies of yesteryear are ecstatic about Colorado decriminalizing marijuana.  For now they don’t have to sneak around and buy their weed from some shady drug dealer.  No, today they can walk down the road any time and walk into Harry’s and hold their head up high and say in a loud steady voice, “Harry, I want you to sell me some marijuana.  In fact, today I think I’ll have some Acapulco Gold, for I am a Coloradan.  But people in other states?  They cannot.  Because their states have never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.”

(Okay, so I borrowed a little from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.  And by a little I mean a lot.  From the scene where the Protestant goes on about being able to buy condoms unlike his Catholic neighbors.  You can see a clip of that scene here but be warned.  It is not appropriate for the workplace.  And not suitable for young children.  If you’re not a man-boy with a somewhat sophisticated yet sophomoric sense of humor you may find this scene somewhat offensive.  But if you are go and buy the two-disc collector’s edition for your personal collection.  So you, too, can impress your friends by quoting these scenes verbatim.  Or alienate everyone around you.  Depending on who your friends are.  But I digress.)

Where was I?  Oh yes, Colorado has solved all of their problems.  They’ve decriminalized marijuana so responsible adults can enjoy this drug responsibly while no kids will.  (Yeah, right.  Pull the other.)  And they’ve figured out a way to bring more money into the state treasury by encouraging people to smoke marijuana.  Even though they frown on people smoking regular cigarettes.  And pretty much banned cigarette smoking everywhere.  For that stuff can get into your lungs and kill you.  First-hand smoke.  Second-hand smoke.  Even third-hand smoke.  That ashtray smell left behind long after a smoker extinguished his or her cigarette.  So Colorado is serious about the harmful effects of smoking tobacco.  Unless it gets you high.  Then apparently the smoke isn’t that bad for you after all.  But just don’t dare light up a cigarette in public anywhere in Colorado.  But if you do, to be safe and save yourself from the judgmental stares of others just make you regular cigarette look like a marijuana joint.  And then you can light that up anywhere and everyone will be cool with you.  Apparently.

So Colorado is doing the responsible thing for responsible adults who will now all follow the letter of the law.  Even though they used to violate state and federal law before Colorado decriminalized marijuana.  Which was and still is classified as a schedule I controlled substance.  Along with heroin and cocaine.  Which carry some pretty stiff penalties if you’re caught carrying.  So these people were willing to break a law that carried stiff penalties when the drug was still illegal.  But that shouldn’t be a problem now that it’s legal (see Tax, and tax again: America’s first market for recreational marijuana will be far from free posted 3/9/2013 on The Economist).

FREE-THE-WEED campaigners speak not of “legalising” marijuana but of “taxing and regulating” it. True to their word, the ballot measure they placed before Colorado’s voters last November, which won the support of 55% of them, was called the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act and contained provisions for a 15% excise tax. Now that the law is taking shape, the signs are that one of the world’s first fully legal marijuana markets (Washington state also backed legalisation) will have all the taxes and rules anyone could have wished for…

Most importantly, the group wants to maintain, for three years, the “vertical integration” model that has governed Colorado’s medical-marijuana industry. Under this system retailers must grow at least 70% of the dope they sell. This forces licence-holders to master a suite of skills from cultivation to distribution. The task-force also suggests that for the law’s first year, only established medical-marijuana dispensaries should be granted retail licences. Some campaigners mutter about protectionism, though grudgingly admit that dispensaries deserve some reward for their pioneering (and risky) work.

Mr Finlaw admits that vertical integration makes it hard to apply the excise tax: licence-holders will have an incentive to undervalue their product. That may help explain another proposal: to slap a tax on marijuana sales, on top of existing state and local sales taxes and the proposed excise tax. No figure will be presented to the legislature, but an “example” of 25% was floated in hearings.

Regulators say they need the funds to enforce their rules. But set taxes too high, fear campaigners, and you leave the illegal market in place, which destroys one of the principal purposes of legalisation in the first place. Either way, any new taxes will have to be approved again by Colorado’s voters, probably in November.

With that level of taxation it is unlikely to make it any less expensive than the weed they used to buy.  And now that the penalty for buying ‘improper’ marijuana may be only as severe as being caught with cigarettes on you purchased in a low-tax state.  Unless you have a tractor trailer full the punishment will be a slap on the wrist.  When Canada raised their cigarette tax drug dealers turned to smuggling cigarettes.  Just as lucrative.  With far less risk.  Yes, the illegally imported marijuana may sell at a lower price than in the past but with it being legal they will be able to make up for a lower profit per sale on volume.  Because a lot more people will be smoking marijuana now.  Besides, a lot of those kids will not be able to walk into Harry’s.  They’ll still need to buy their stuff on the black market.

Over-tight rules create opportunities for and cosy relationships between the industry and regulators. But Colorado’s legislators must perform a balancing act, because they are being watched by the federal government. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law…

Some members of the prohibition industry are running out of patience. On March 5th the president of the International Narcotics Control Board, an arm of the UN, said that marijuana legalisation in America violated international treaties and threatened public health.

Ironic, really.  It’s the Left that is pushing for the decriminalization of marijuana.  Despite their relentless assault on Big Tobacco and making it pretty much illegal to smoke a regular cigarette anywhere outside your home or car.  And they’re closing in on those, too.  If you have children.  Because of that third-hand smoke.  It is also the Left that wants to keep ceding power and sovereignty to the United Nations.  And here they are.  Violating an international treaty of that august body that they hold so dear.  Go figure.

The Left is an inscrutable bunch.  With politics driving their every action.  They champion individual liberty when it comes to sex and drugs but want to put you in jail for smoking a legal cigarette.  Because smoking is bad for your health.  Unless that smoke is from marijuana.  Then it’s no big deal.  They want a big world government to pass environmental regulations they can’t pass in their own country to regulate and punish capitalism but then ask who does the UN think they are telling them they can’t violate a treaty they don’t like?  Like decriminalizing a schedule I controlled substance?

Individual liberty for those who think like them.  And oppressive and punishing regulations for those who don’t.  This is the political Left.  Which is also the way things were in an absolute monarchy.  A totalitarian fascist, Nazi or communist regime.  An Islamist theocracy.  And any other oppressive regime where those in power lived by a different set of rules than those who they ruled over.  Despite expressing equality and egalitarianism it was more times than not like life for the poor animals on George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  Where everyone was equal.  Only some were more equal than others.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

British Doctors want more Alcohol Regulations to reduce the Cost of Alcohol Misuse

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

Early Americans really had a drinking problem.  Some drank so heavily that they had to crawl home on their hands and knees after a night of drinking in the tavern.  Of course that was to be expected.  For we came from British stock.  Who apparently have a penchant for drinking to great excess (see Doctors: urgent action on alcohol needed by Denis Campbell posted 2/28/2013 on the guardian).

Doctors’ leaders want tough action to limit the sale and promotion of alcohol, including cigarette-style graphic warnings and an end to drinks firms sponsoring sport, to tackle the growing toll of drink-related problems.

A coalition of medical organisations, including those representing GPs, A&E doctors and surgeons, urges ministers in a new report to implement an array of radical measures to reduce the £55bn annual cost of alcohol misuse…

Sir Ian Gilmore, the AHA’s chair, said action was especially urgent given that UK teenagers drink much more than the European average…

But the Department of Health said: “Cigarette-style health warnings are not applicable to alcohol. All levels of smoking are bad for your health, but the same cannot be said for alcohol consumption.”

Yes, UK teenagers have a drinking problem.  Requiring them to spend £55bn ($82.72 billion US) annually due to alcohol misuse.  Which they want to reduce with higher minimum prices, more graphic labeling and lower legal blood-alcohol amounts while driving.  But it’s the labeling that I find most interesting.  For we label our cigarettes in the U.S. with dire warnings about what will happen to you if you smoke.  But teenagers don’t care.  Why?  Because smoking looks cool.  Their Hollywood icons smoke in their favorite movies.  As do their music icons.  And nothing looks cooler to a teenager than a guy playing a low-slung guitar with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth.  So teenagers want to smoke.  Because it makes them look cool.  And grown up.  Despite the horrific labeling on the packaging.

So is labeling on alcohol going to do any good?  When even teenagers know that all smoking is bad for you but not necessarily all drinking?  For their parents may have a drink after work.  A bottle of wine with their dinner.  And they seem to be just fine.  So teenagers aren’t going to worry that much about drinking.  And they may not worry that much about smoking anymore.  For even though we say all smoking is bad for you two states have decriminalized marijuana.  And you smoke that.  Something that many teenagers really enjoy.  And marijuana cigarettes don’t have filters.  All of that smoke goes right into your lungs.  Teenagers know this.  And if two states say that’s okay for you then maybe cigarette smoking isn’t really that bad for you.  After all smoking regular cigarettes isn’t as damaging as smoking marijuana.  Where a lot of smoke, soot and ash make it into your lungs.  Stuff that a filter in a regular cigarette filters out.

Sure, to a wise adult this doesn’t make any sense.  But to a teenager who wants to look cool and grown up it makes a lot of sense.  For teenagers can rationalize away any risky or harmful behavior if it’s something they enjoy.  Or makes them look cool and grown up.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The UFCW wants to unionize Workers at Medical Marijuana Pot Shops

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2013

Week in Review

The unions have always advertised that union made was better made.  Because it was safer.  And of higher quality.  For unions look out for the people.  They protect our kids in school.  And demand high safety standards in industry.  They even have a zero tolerance policy on drug use in the workplace.  Large union contracts on big construction projects have mandatory drug testing to hire in.  And have random-random drug tests monthly.  Once a month on some random day at some random time they call workers in to pee in a cup for testing.  That’s how committed the unions are in combating drug use.  So you never would have expected to see something like this (see Insight: Shrinking U.S. labor unions see relief in marijuana industry by Samuel P. Jacobs and Alex Dobuzinskis posted 2/6/2013 on Reuters).

During the last few years, unions, led by the UFCW [United Food and Commercial Workers union], have played an increasingly significant role in campaigns to allow medical marijuana, now legal in California, 17 other states and Washington, D.C…

Union officials acknowledge that their support stems partly from the idea that the marijuana industry could create hundreds of thousands of members at a time when overall union membership is shrinking…

Industry advocates acknowledge that the legal marijuana industry’s potential to produce jobs is difficult to project. One reason: uncertainty over how the U.S. government will deal with an industry whose product is illegal under federal law but increasingly accepted by state laws.

Since Colorado and Washington state voted to legalize marijuana on November 6, President Barack Obama has said his administration will not pursue recreational pot users in those states.

This is interesting.  If the states don’t like a federal law they just ignore it.  If Colorado and Washington can simply ignore a federal law they don’t like then every state that doesn’t like Obamacare should be able to ignore it, too.  If the unions protest states that ignore Obamacare (the unions endorsed Obamacare) and insist that they follow federal law then so should Colorado and Washington.  Who should immediately re-criminalize marijuana under state law.  To match federal law.

By joining a union, marijuana workers could have more sway in pressing for higher pay and benefits such as healthcare…

The retailers there say they are conflicted – grateful for the legitimacy that labor’s involvement could bring their businesses, but worried that the support could undermine the already shaky financial footing of their small operations.

One marijuana business owner in Denver said he considered aligning with the UFCW but eventually backed away. He said he was worried that having a union shop would hurt the value of his business by driving up employment costs…

Eventually, [UFCW’s Rush] helped to persuade enough labor leaders that the same union that organized Hostess bakery workers could represent people who made pot brownies.

High union labor costs just bankrupted Hostess and put them out of business.  So, yeah, marijuana retailers are worried about higher labor costs if their shops unionize.  There’s a reason why there is so little union membership today.  It is very difficult for a business to stay in business with those high union costs.  The very costs that bankrupted General Motors and Chrysler requiring the government bailout.  If they unionize their costs will go up.  As will their prices.  Giving the non-unionized shops a price advantage.  As well as the drug dealer on the street.

In Los Angeles, UFCW Local 770 is pushing a ballot measure that would set zoning and safety standards for medical pot dispensaries. For years, police and residents have complained about the impact that less-than-reputable medical marijuana dispensaries have on some neighborhoods.

Dispensary workers and owners who have aligned themselves with the union say that some competitors undermine prices and security by flouting labor laws and avoiding taxes.

Decriminalizing marijuana is not the panacea they think it is.  First of all no one wants what drugs attract.  Addicts.  And crime.  Shutting down the nonunion shops won’t take care of that problem.  Because the higher prices at the ‘reputable’ drug retailers will only broaden the market for the drug dealers on the street.  Who are also nonunion.  And can sell their marijuana for less than a pot shop with high union labor costs.

Medical marijuana retailers have provided more than medical marijuana.  People wanting marijuana for recreational use had no problem getting a doctor’s prescription.  Including people who bought marijuana and resold it to kids.  Higher retailer prices at ‘reputable’ pot shops are not going to change that.  It will only raise the street value of marijuana.  Making for a prosperous black market.

The UFCW is obviously backing and lobbying for full decriminalization.  So their members can prosper from a rise in drug use.  And addiction.  It is interesting how the Left attacks cigarette smoking.  Even suing Big Tobacco for the harm their addictive product has done to those who smoke.  Yet as evil as cigarette smoking is there is no such outrage over marijuana smoking.  Which they say is not only harmless but medicinal.  Talk about your double standards.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tobacco, Smoking, Cigarettes, Sin Taxes, Obesity, Health Care Costs, Lost Tax Revenue, Abortion, Deficit and Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 5th, 2012

History 101

The Government saves Money in the Long Run when People Smoke because they Die Earlier than Nonsmokers 

A lot of people like to smoke.  Before we knew any of the adverse health effects of smoking it was as wholesome as apple pie in America.  American tobacco was one of the first cash crops of the United States.  Because it was in such high demand throughout the world.  During the American Civil War many officers chain-smoked cigars.  We put cigarettes in our soldiers’ C-rations in World War II.  Some of the most iconic photographs of battle-weary soldiers, seamen and airmen have a cigarette dangling from their mouths.  Our favorite parents from the Fifties’ sitcoms smoked cigarettes in their homes with their children playing on the floor at their feet.  If you watch AMC’s Mad Men everyone smoked cigarettes.  All of the time.  At work and at home.  In restaurants and in hospitals.  Even while pregnant.  Then the attacks against Big Tobacco began.

First they started with the sin taxes.  Greatly increasing the cost of cigarettes.  Which increased their opportunity costs.  People had to give up other things to continue to enjoy their cigarettes.  Especially the poor.  The rich still could enjoy their cigarettes without making sacrifices in their life.  And kept on smoking.  Movie stars and rock stars always have a cigarette hanging out of their mouths.  To look cool.  Which is why teenagers started to smoke.  Not because of Joe Camel.  But to look cool like their favorite movie stars and rock stars.  So people kept smoking their cigarettes.  While the government bureaucrats started tallying the health care cost of smokers.  To recover the health care cost of smoking government bureaucrats sued Big Tobacco.

According to ‘health care experts’ in the government smoking costs the health care industry some $100 billion annually.  Which is why they’re constantly raising taxes on cigarettes.  Why they sued Big Tobacco.  And why they’re ostracizing smokers everywhere by making almost every area a nonsmoking area.  But they still haven’t made smoking illegal.  Why?  High sin taxes and lawsuits.  Smoking is a cash cow for government.  And the dirty little secret about smoking is that the government saves money in the long run when people smoke.  Because of those sin taxes.  And because smokers die earlier than nonsmokers.  Up to a decade or more.  And it is in that last decade of life that seniors cost government the most.  Another decade of Social Security benefits.  And Medicare and Medicaid benefits.  Those benefits smokers paid into all of their lives.  Who forfeit them when they die early (and they don’t get passed on to their heirs).  Unlike the nonsmokers who don’t have the decency to die before collecting all of their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  Adding another decade or so for a whole sort of health ailments to inflict their fragile bodies.  Requiring more hospitalization.  Medication.  And nursing home care.  Expenses smokers help cut short by dying earlier.  Such as from an early heart attack before they even get a chance to have a lengthy and expensive hospital stay.

The Loss Tax Revenue from Abortions in the Eighties over Three Decades is Approximately $4.98 Trillion 

So government is increasing the opportunity costs of something people enjoy.  Smoking.  When in the long run smokers’ early deaths save the government money.   Not to mention those sin taxes fattening the tax pot when they’re alive.  So it’s a specious argument that the government is spending more on them in health care costs than nonsmokers who live another 10-20 years.  So why do they do it?  To boost tax revenues.  And smokers are just a convenient scapegoat.  Like the obese.  Where those on the Left make the same arguments.  Where according to ‘health care experts’ in the government obesity costs the health care industry some $150 billion annually.  Even though these people like smokers live shorter lives.  So while they’re consuming that $150 million the government is keeping about 10-20 years of their contributions to Social Security and Medicare.  So it is again a specious argument that the government is spending more on obese people than thinner, healthier people who live 10-20 years longer.  Who could, say, fall and break their pelvis requiring an extensive and expensive hospital stay.  As well as rehabilitation and possibly nursing home care.  And yet those on the left have campaigned to remove toys from Happy Meals.  And made it illegal in New York to buy a big cup of soda pop.  Why?  Again, to boost tax revenue.

All right, let’s go to the source of that tax revenue problem.  Let’s look at a decade of lost tax revenue.  From 1980 to 1983 there were about 1,300,000 abortions each year.  In 1984 there were 1,333,521 abortions.  In 1985 there were 1,328,570 abortions.  In 1986 there were 1,328,112 abortions.  In 1987 there were 1,353,671 abortions.  In 1988 there were 1,371,285 abortions.  In 1989 there were 1,396,658 abortions.  In 1990 there were 1,429,577 abortions. 

Had these abortions not happen in 2006 there would have been an additional 1,300,000 taxpayers aged 26.  In 2007 there would have been an additional 1,300,000 taxpayers aged 27 and an additional 1,300,000 taxpayers aged 26.  And so on.  If you crunch the numbers over a 30-year period by decades you get an additional 72,006,665 people paying taxes at all levels of government in the first decade (2006-2015).  An additional 146,913, 940 tax-paying people in the second decade (2016-2025).  And an additional 88,169,092 tax-paying people in the third decade (2026-2035).  The average age in the first decade is 29.  It’s 32 in the second decade.  And 42 in the third decade.  Assuming those age 29 earn on average $30,000 annually, those age 32 earn on average $40,000 annually and those age 42 earn on average $50,000 we get the following incomes per decade: $2.16 trillion, $5.88 trillion and $4.41 trillion, respectively.  Assuming that we pay approximately 40% of all our earnings in taxes at the city, state and federal level the lost tax revenue (at all levels of government) for those same decades equals $864.1 billion, $2.35 trillion and $1.76 trillion, respectively.  For a grand total of loss tax revenue for those three decades of approximately $4.98 trillion.  Or on average $165.9 billion per year.  These numbers are conservative.  Yes, some of these people may not survive to become taxpayers.  But some of these could become millionaires and billionaires, paying more in taxes.  There could have been another Lady Gaga, Madonna, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, Steve Jobs, etc.  A few of these added to the calculations would make the lost tax revenue numbers larger.

From the Government’s Perspective Abortion has a Far Greater Opportunity Cost than Smoking and Obesity 

This is the opportunity cost of the abortions in the Eighties.  So much loss tax revenue that the government has attacked smokers and the obese.  Whose health care costs are not adding much if anything to the federal budget.  Thanks to their early deaths compared to nonsmokers and thin people.  (If the government starts refunding remaining Social Security and Medicare benefits to the surviving family that may change.)  Yes they are costing the health care system.  But their costs are just brought up earlier in their lives as opposed to someone living 10-20 years longer making the nursing home to hospital to nursing home roundtrip a few times in the last 10 years or so of their life.  Because they have lived so long.  And had a chance to suffer every disease and trauma those smokers and obese can’t due to their early deaths.

It is interesting to note that the federal deficit in 2006 was $282.14 billion.  The lost tax revenue from the Eighties’ abortions was on average $165.9 billion per year in those three decades.  Granted not all of that money would have been federal taxes.  But with the conservative estimate of that loss tax revenue it is safe to say it would have come close to balancing the federal budget.  And if you factor in the abortions of the Seventies (there were fewer than in the Eighties but they would have been higher earners in the 2000s) the federal deficit may have become a surplus.  At least holding the federal debt to the $9.34 trillion it was in 2006.  Perhaps even reducing it.

Smoking and eating an unhealthy diet may be bad for you.  But it probably doesn’t cost the government anymore in tax dollars.  But they increase the opportunity costs of these things we enjoy to dissuade us from enjoying them.  So those who enjoy smoking and eating and drinking ‘bad’ things enjoy life less.  By not choosing what they want to choose.  Why? To pay for the lost revenue from another choice that government doesn’t try to dissuade people from.  Abortion.  Which from the government’s perspective has a far greater opportunity cost than smoking and obesity.  And yet government paints a bulls-eye on the back of smokers and the obese.  Why?  Because they’ve so demonized and oppressed them they can.  While the abortion issue too much of a sacred cow to those on the Left.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT107: “Birth control pills prevent a natural biological function while ED pills restore one.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Women take Birth Control Pills to have Sex without it resulting in the Miracle of Life or a Real Inconvenience

The human body is a complex machine with one biological purpose.  To propagate the species.  That is, to make babies.  Humans may have other purposes.  Depending on your religion.  Or lack thereof.  But biologically speaking everything we do as humans is to sustain our lives so we can make babies.  Just like other animals on this planet.  And all organisms that lay eggs or give live birth.  At the most basic level we are just baby-making machines.  It’s the natural order of things.  Our biological purpose.  Which explains why we have a sex drive.  And why we spade and neuter stray cats.

The great George Michael explained this sex drive well in song (excerpted here):

It’s natural
It’s chemical
It’s logical
Habitual
It’s sensual
But most of all
Sex is something we should do
Sex is something for me and you
Sex is natural
Sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody should
Sex is natural
sex is fun
Sex is best when it’s one on one

(From George Michael’s I Want Your Sex.)

Not familiar with George Michael?  Am I dating myself?  Just ask your parents who George Michael is.  Chances are your mom will make a face or a sound you don’t want to see or hear as she recalls a primeval lust from yesteryear.  But this is sex.  And it’s all these things for one reason.  Biologically speaking, that is.  To start up that biological machine.  And to make it do what it was meant to do.  Make babies.

Now there are those who want to alter the natural order of things.  Who enjoy having sex.  Lots and lots of sex.  In fact, they can’t get enough of that sex.  But they don’t want the natural output of that biological machine.  So they practice birth control.  Men wear condoms.  Women take birth control pills.  Among other things.  To prevent all of that fun from resulting in the miracle of life.  Or a real inconvenience.  Depending on your religious views.  Or lack thereof.

Women who have Abortions have Higher Incidences of Breast Cancer than Women who take Birth Control Pills or who have Babies 

Cigarettes introduce unnatural chemicals into the human body.  Harming the human body.  So the government places great sin taxes on them to dissuade us from smoking.  They warn us of the dangers to scare us into not smoking.  And they sue the tobacco companies because they have lots of money.  And blame them for kids smoking.  Not their music, movie and television heroes.  (What guitar hero doesn’t have a cigarette dangling from their lips as they play?)  Eating poorly can harm the human body, too.  And government is now taking steps to protect people from bad food.  Not quite like they do with cigarettes.  Yet.  But they are working in that direction.

Obamacare is forcing people to buy health insurance.  Because, they say, many of us are harming ourselves through poor lifestyle choices.  Such as smoking.  Or eating poorly.  And it’s not fair that we go to the emergency room for free health care.  Because it just makes health insurance more expensive for those who do buy it.  To cover the costs for all of those uninsured emergency room visits.  So Obamacare wants to use the heavy hand of government to make people either make better lifestyle choices.  Or pay for the consequences of their poor lifestyle choices.

A recent study has shown links between rising incidences of breast cancer and the lack of using breasts for their biological purpose.  Feeding babies.  Women who bottle feed have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who breast feed.  Women who take birth control pills have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who have babies.  And women who have abortions have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who take birth control pills.  The study indicates that it’s the interruption of the natural biological process of converting the breast tissue to produce milk causing the increase in the incidences of breast cancer.  And stopping the conversion of tissue after the process starts (i.e., having an abortion) has the most harmful affect on the breast tissue.  Leaving mutated cells that become cancerous.

Any Political Candidate that Helps Young People have Sex is Sure to get their Vote

Obamacare includes provisions that require insurance providers to provide birth control and abortion.  They call these women’s health issues.  Because the ‘miracle of life’ or that ‘great inconvenience’ (depending on your religious views or lack thereof) can be very harmful if carried to term.  Thus fulfilling the natural order of things.  The biological purpose of our human machines.  So Obamacare discourages us from smoking and eating poorly because of the costly and harmful consequences of these lifestyle choices.  But they encourage another potentially harmful lifestyle choice.  Having sex without making babies.  Which may increase the incidences of breast cancer.  The very program that is supposed to make us choose healthier lifestyles and accept the consequences of poor lifestyle choices encourages women to choose an unhealthy lifestyle that may give them breast cancer.  Or a venereal disease.  Which may happen with all that sex with multiple partners.  Unless they’re following the advice of George Michael.  And keeping it one on one.

Of course, these are primeval views.  Much like that primeval sex drive.  Only we’re supposed to get over our primeval views on making babies.  So women are free to enjoy careers.  And have as much consequence-free sex as they desire.  Something that pleases a lot of men.  Probably more men than women.  Especially young men.  Who have one thing on their mind.  And couldn’t ask for anything more than free-spirited and empowered women with access to all the women’s health products and services she so desires.  And any political candidate that helps these young people to have as much sex as they want is sure to get their vote.  So it’s no surprise that the Democrats get the youth vote.  Because the Democrats are so unlike these kids’ parents.

So women demand their birth control.  For their health.  And demand that their health insurance plans pay for it.  Or the taxpayers.  Because it’s an issue of women’s health.  That we can address in no other way.  (Excluding abstinence, marriage, paying for your own birth control, etc.)  In fact they say it’s no different than men’s erectile dysfunction (ED) pills.  But there is a slight difference.  The ED pills try to restore a biological function.  Whereas birth control tries to prevent one.  ED pills tries to restore the human baby-making machine.  While birth control pills tries to shut that machine down.  Contrary to the natural order.  And our biological purpose. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT88: “Liberals say live and let live when it comes to sex and drugs but don’t you dare eat at McDonald’s or light a cigarette in front of them.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Liberals want us to Treat Kids as Adults when it comes to Sex and Drugs

Liberals want to hand out condoms in school.  And they want to teach school kids how to use them.   They want to give them access to birth control.  And abortions.  Because kids are going to have sex.  No matter what we say.  So live and let live they say.  Let these kids have their fun.  And we’ll deal with the consequences later.  Such as an unwanted pregnancy.  A venereal disease.  Or rape.  Should a young girl get scared and change her mind.  Should a boy not understand that ‘no’ really means ‘no’.  Or believes consent is nonrefundable.  Especially after getting all riled up in school learning about sex.  In an academic setting.  Where it seems like just good clean fun.  Rather than learning it the old fashioned way.  From a parent.  Who tells you to wait until you’re a responsible adult.  Because it’s not just good clean fun.  It’s serious.  And can have some serious consequences.

Liberals would like to decriminalize drugs.  At least marijuana.  Because kids are going to experiment.  No matter what we say.  Marijuana is harmless, they say.  And they poo poo the naysayers who say it can be a gateway drug.  Marijuana won’t make people tire of it.  And look for a higher high.  Because heroin, coke and meth addictions just happen.  Spontaneously.  Just like alcohol addiction.  Some people have a predisposition for addiction.  And the drugs themselves are in no way to blame.  It’s a person’s DNA.  So live and let live they say.  Because drugs don’t addict people.  People do.  Those with a predisposition to addiction.  But it’s not their fault.  They’re just hardwired that way.  So we shouldn’t blame them.  Or drugs.  It just happens.

You see, people are adults.  Even kids.  That’s why we need to treat them as adults.  And if we do they’ll make adult decisions.  Partake in sex and drugs responsibly.  Like adults.  And there will be no consequences we can’t manage after the fact.  Like adults.

Liberals aren’t all that Concerned about Unwanted Pregnancies, Venereal Disease or Drug Addiction

So kids may be adults.  But their parents aren’t.  Liberals don’t want them making ‘adult’ decisions.  Such as what to eat, drink or smoke.  Like kids can about sex and drugs.  No.  Liberals want to use the power of government to make these decisions for adults.  Because they can’t be trusted to make the right decisions.

They want to tax fast food.  And soda pop.  Like they tax cigarettes.  To make them very expensive.  So they can make people choose correctly.  To choose what liberals want them to choose.  And not what these adults want.

You see, liberals aren’t all that concerned about unwanted pregnancies, venereal disease or drug addiction.  But they are very concerned about trans-fat and sugar.  They don’t want you enjoying the occasional McDonald’s meal.  A bag of chips.  A Mountain Dew.  Or a cigarette.  And if they catch you lighting up a cigarette after a meal in a McDonald’s, look out.  You will get a look of contempt and pure hate like you’ve never seen before.  Because you’ve dared to expose children to second-hand smoke.  For kids smoking pot first-hand is one thing.  But breathing second-hand smoke is just unhealthy.  Wrong.  And could scar them for life.  Unlike an unwanted pregnancy, a venereal disease or a drug addiction.

Liberals want Kids to Think Sex, Drugs and Vote Democrat

Why do they want to help kids have sex and do drugs?  Because they want kids to like them.  And they will if they make high school and college as much fun as possible.  They want these kids to think sex, drugs and vote Democrat.  Because liberal Democrats need the youth vote.  For they can’t win elections without it.  And they don’t care if these kids get scarred for life from an unwanted pregnancy, a venereal disease or a drug addiction.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,