On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

No, the premises *aren't* sound. For instance, it might be the VERY
early drug experiences of the candidates that made them want to
support anti-drug legislation.

What sort of early expierience would have them not supporting leaving
terminally ill patients alone with regard to Pot?

Who knows? The point is, linking early experimental drug use as a
teenager to support of current policies doesn't hold much water. What
*does* hold water (and it's something that I'd expect you to praise)
is not running from the question and actually admitting to behavior
that's not considered appropriate for a presidential candidate.

That's just *one* thing that destroys
the premise of the article.

OSAF.

Well, it *is* a fact. There are other things as well.

There are plenty more, but i doubt you
want to hear them as well.

Your lefrtist views are predictable.

I wonder if there's *any* way that you can post without a screwup.

BTW, our current Prez apparently did cocaine at some point. Does this
make *him* a hypocrite as well?

Given that it was ruining his life, no. Do I agree with anti-drug laws,
no.

Did I say you did?