First reported 'absinthe death' in UK

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Topics Archived thru April 2001:First reported 'absinthe death' in UK
By Joshua on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 06:32 am: Edit

thats a very good point bob,and i agree with it totally,it is better to have a choice between the two,and many children do grow up to have happy productive lives.i guess my main point was i just dont want to hear about any babies being found in dumpsters.and the line "Perhaps the parents are the ones who need euthanizing"thats priceless.

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 05:33 am: Edit

Josh:

but i would rather abortions than battered children

Children being battered is shitty. But how many battered children grow up and live happy lives? Then ask yourself, how many aborted children grow up and live happy lives? Choosing between killing and beating ain't much of a choice. Perhaps the parents are the ones who need euthanizing. Pass the Soylent Absinthe.

BC

By Joshua on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 05:23 am: Edit

point taken lord h,personally i dont like the idea of aboritons,but i would rather abortions than battered children.i just think aboritons should be left an option,just yesterday here in maimi,a newborn baby was found laying atop a trash pile in a dumpster,if abortions are outlawed this will become more and more frequent.i guess im sticking my nose where it doesnt belong too,oh bother

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Joshua

As for people not putting their noses where they don't belong individual cases are entitled to privacy so long as they are not breaking current legislation. But as for the discussing the issues who determines what issues are beyond discussion? Should there be any issues where people cannot call for a change in legislation?

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Joshua,

Many things could be considered 'private' matters between certain people. However the state (quite rightly) does not take the view that all of these 'private' matters are none of its concern. We have legislation that curtails the rights of individuals where the state believes it is in the public interest to have such legislation. Such matters do concern us all, even if we are up to this point not personally directly affected. Very few things can be considered as totally private and of no concern to others, if one person is concerned then the issue becomes an issue that that person is entitled to raise. It is quite reasonable for citizens to express an opinion and call for legislation on any issue that they feel concerned about.

Hobgoblin

By Perruche_Verte on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Obviously I misinterpreted you then. Sorry.

By Joshua on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 - 05:56 am: Edit

people get so worked up over a choice that really concerns them in no way,it is a private matter between the doctor and mother.not religous groups,politicans,or gun toting nut jobs.i guess this would have been a better way of putting it,not sticking ones head in the sand,but keepings ones nose where it belongs.

By Perruche_Verte on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Oh you take a step forward
Put your head between your knees
And do the Ostrich
Do the Ostrich...

-- Lou Reed w/the Primitives


I think I'll go in for a bilateral orchiectomy*,
then become a Carthusian monk, take a vow of
silence and give up all my friendships with women.
Then it won't involve me, and I won't worry about it.

*http://www.beavercleaver.net/orchiectomy_slides.htm

Oh, http://www.beavercleaver.net/faq.htm is a very funny site about vasectomy -- guy needs to
use Spellcheck, but it had me in tears.

By Joshua on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 11:28 am: Edit

today i came up with a simple idea of how to solve this whole abortion deal worldwide,simply put, if it doesnt involve you,dont worry about it.

By _Blackjack on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 11:21 am: Edit


Quote:

The analogy with guns is a bit odd. Guns (with a few excemptions) are banned in the UK. There is not great trade in illegal guns here, very few people own a gun here.



Well, here in the US, we basically have to choose between the political party that wants to ban abortions and the one that wants to ban guns (the parties are otherwise virtually indistinguishable). I tend to support the latter, since, while I believe in the right to bear arms, I would rather someone have to get an illegal gun than an illegal abortion. Illegal guns work just as well as legal ones, and should it prove necissary to overthrow the government, I wouldn't be worried about having the right permits...

The hope that RU-486 gives is that a ban on abortions would not present nearly the threat to women's lives that once it would, since illegal abortions would be much safer.

By Melinelly on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 09:22 am: Edit

on a slightly different note, there IS a birth control pill for MEN in the works. we might see it become available within the next few years.

By Melinelly on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 09:19 am: Edit

Absinthesque, though feti do not currently have rights, there IS a bill in congress with the purpose of granting rights of citizenship and person to the unborn. the language is however quite shaky. it's for the most part just a statement by a few members of congress. they use the term "fetus" but don't realize that any abortion laws already protect feti... zygotes and anomylous blobs of flesh on the other hand...

PV, you are correct in your post about becoming an MD. abortion is indeed not required knowledge. many hospitals refer women wishing to abort to clinics where the most skilled practitioners are. also, the availability of abortion facilities does indeed vary state to state, county to county... it's not nearly as bad as it was 30 years ago for sure, but sometimes, women still travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion... and there are still many cases each year of women dying from "back alley" abortions because of the effort required to obtain one professionally.

as for RU486, if abortion is made illegal, there will be less of a market for the drug. why? because of cost. medical abortions via the pill or a shot are MORE expensive than a surgical abortion. as far as abortionservices go, only the morning after pill is anywhere near afordable at just under $100 a pop. however, a woman has to take that "the morning after" conception or shortly thereafter for it to work. it's not really an abortion drug. it simply makes it impossible for an egg to attach to the uterine wall... so despite the existense of safer, less invasive, and less traumatic means of abortion, if outlawed again the costs will skyrocket and make "affordable" for most only unsafe and unsanitary "back alley" abortions.

my web access is down at home, so i haven't been around since thursday. until i get hold of a windows cd and reinstall, i'll only be posting at work. nevertheless, i'm going to try to stay out of this unless to support of rebuke statements of "fact" seeing as people have dug in their heels. i'm with BC on this one. arguing is pointless as we've all made up our minds, and this subject as debate gets very tiring...

i have to agree with some things said, particularly by absinthesque, perruche verte, kallisti, and malhomme...

"if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one."

"I'd rather give women more social and economic power, and put a little more social pressure on men who don't take responsibility for where their semen goes. I'm not talking about "deadbeat dad" laws, etc., just social attitudes."

"Until the day I have one of these abortions, I don't feel qualified to talk about this stuff."

"this is why I don't bring it up, because I don't presume to know the mysteries of the universe, or when a hunk of cell matter becomes a person. Doesn't help that I don't believe in the soul, in any religious sense. To me, the choice is the crux of the matter, and there is an end to it. Belief and moral conviction should be entirely personal."

***please insert "amen" and "hallelujah" in between each quote***

By Terminus on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 08:20 am: Edit

I'm so glad I brought up the issue of abortion in here. ;)

By Artemis on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 07:48 am: Edit

My last comment on this topic. Several people have apparently perceived a position on my part with regard to abortion. I took no such position. I merely pointed out (or tried to) that no person has a "right" to medical treatment of any kind, whereas the state has the legal right, vested in it by the people as a whole (or at least a majority of them) to set limits on what practitioners licensed by said state can do at the request of their patrons. Whether any given state follows an enlightened path in this regard is very much open to question.

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 07:31 am: Edit

Anatomist,

My suggestion in my earlier post was not intended to increase the number of unwanted children, but to increase the number of wanted children. Many women (and couples) would in fact like to have children (or more children) but are often deterred from doing so by the financial costs involved. If the state (which has a vested long-term interest in maintaining a sufficient workforce in the future) eases the financial burden through support (not just token incentives) then more wanted children will be born. The cost of this incentive will be paid back to society when these children become tax-payers.

Hobgoblin
(As I've posted more than my fair share of posts on this topic, I've no wish to hog the thread. I'll now cordially back out unless someone specifically wants to make reference to anything I've said, in which case I'll reply)

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 07:21 am: Edit

Absinthesque,

It would seem that when the current law agrees with you, you believe that people who disagree are not entitled to try to use their influence to change the law. You believe we are entitled to oppose abortion, but that we are not entitled to oppose the law on abortion. I suppose on the other hand that if you disagree with the law, you believe that people are entitled to use their influence to change the law.

You view a pregnant woman as one person, I view a pregnant woman as two people. You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to opinion, but we are both entitled to try to influence a change in the law.

Hobgoblin

By Absinthesque on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 07:19 am: Edit

i concede that "insult" was an ill-chosen word. but that's all i will concede.

By Artemis on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 06:41 am: Edit

"artemis,
you can hurl insults"

Point one out! Your imagination has gotten the best of you. The worst I said about you is that you have not grasped what I said. If you find that insulting, you'd better stay out of this forum because there's much worse in store for you somewhere down the line! But not from me. If you want to talk about absinthe, let me know.

By Bob_Chong on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 05:43 am: Edit

last I heard she had two more children who she dumped with their grandmother who went off her rocker as a jesus reincarnation and, at least for awhile, kept the two babies in a van where she was living. *cough*

So I assume when some in this thread read this, they thought, "That's terrible--too bad those babies weren't aborted"?

BC

By Absinthesque on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 05:29 am: Edit

hob,

courts have decided that i am right as a legal not a moral matter. people who oppose abortion remain free to not have them.

what the courts have decided is:

1. as a matter of law, a woman may choose to have an abortion and up to a certain point, the state has no legitimate interest in interfering.

2. unborn feti are not "people" according to the us constitution" and do not have the same legal rights as those of us who are already born. again this is a legal not a moral issue.

the death penalty (which i oppose) is an entirely different matter, as the state is in the business of taking lives. the "right" to the death penalty is not an individual one, and it would be more accurate to describe it as a power vested in the state.


mark

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 04:43 am: Edit

Blackjack,

"Safe abortions can now be hoarded and smuggled like guns..."

The analogy with guns is a bit odd. Guns (with a few excemptions) are banned in the UK. There is not great trade in illegal guns here, very few people own a gun here.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 04:38 am: Edit

We indeed are facing a future labour-crisis in the West. We can either produce our own labour by increasing the birth-rate in our own countries, or we can open up our borders. What is not a viable option is to keep our borders closed and carry on with our reducing birth-rate (as we are doing at present).

We need to approach population growth (or control) not as something solely down to the individual, but as it is an issue that has a great impact on society as a whole. The state does not leave the issue of immigrant labour to the individual. The state needs to plan and take control in both issues.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 04:26 am: Edit

Absinthesque,

"the fact is the supreme court has recognized and reaffirmed that a woman has a right to an abortion"

"the question of whether abortion kills anyone is a moral and religious issue about which reasonable people differ, as you and i undoubtedly do. it's not the business of the state to decide which one of us is "right".

Absinthesque on one hand you quote the supreme court as supporting this 'right' as you see it, and on the other hand you say it is not the business of the state to decide such 'rights'.

It is exactly the business of the state to decide whether you or Artemis is right, currently the state supports you.

It is in fact the state that decides all your legal 'rights'. The state has decided that there is a 'right'to abortion. The state (USA) has decided that there is a 'right' to execute murderers. The state (UK) has decided that there is not a right to execute murderers. The state has decided that you do not have the 'right' to kill your neighbour if he insults you etc. etc.

To decide rights is the role of the state. It is also correct that people should attempt to influence the state to remove 'rights', add new 'rights', change 'rights' etc. Abortion is not exempt from this.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 11:15 pm: Edit


Quote:

prohibiting competent doctors from performing abortions will not eliminate the practice, it will only make it clandestine, dangerous and often deadly for the women who seek it.



Well, it would be better (in the developed owrld, anyway) than it was 30 years ago, since we have things like RU-486. Safe abortions can now be hoarded and smuggled like guns...

By Admin on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Oh, NO. I'd much rather sit here listening, smirking smugly with arms akimbo, while all ya'll duke it out. Fascinating stuff, really.

And this is why I don't bring it up, because I don't presume to know the mysteries of the universe, or when a hunk of cell matter becomes a person. Doesn't help that I don't believe in the soul, in any religious sense. To me, the choice is the crux of the matter, and there is an end to it. Belief and moral conviction should be entirely personal.

I did know one young woman who regretted it. She was a very close friend who fell on hard times with crack & prostitution. She vowed she'd never do it again and last I heard she had two more children who she dumped with their grandmother who went off her rocker as a jesus reincarnation and, at least for awhile, kept the two babies in a van where she was living. *cough*

By Marc on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Where the women at?

Until the day I have one of these abortions, I don't feel qualified to talk about this stuff.

By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 09:48 pm: Edit

I think you guys are missing each other's points.

Absintheque writes: "your argument about licensing doctors is specious because no one is seriously proposing it...[snip] thus doctors will have to be trained and licensed to perform the procedure in some instances, no matter what. . ."

Really? Once again, this is already happening, and in fact is the biggest threat to abortion access in the US right now.

It's possible I'm talking out of my ass here, so hopefully Melinelly (who has access to stats) will correct any errors, but my understanding is that abortion is actually not a required part of the med school curriculum, and in fact a number of med schools no longer provide instruction in the procedure. You are not obliged to learn how to perform abortions in order to become an MD, or to practice them once licensed.

In fact 86% of US counties have no abortion provider, and I believe there are a couple of states that have only one. Naturally poor women and those in rural areas are most affected by these circumstances.

This is why making RU-486 available is such an important question. I'm sure there are MDs who are privately opposed to the Pill, but it's a drug, not a surgical procedure, and they are obliged to provide it to women who ask for it and don't have health conditions which prevent their using it.

By Absinthesque on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 07:44 pm: Edit

artemis,

you can hurl insults and quote out of context all you want, but you haven't addressed the substance of my argument, so go ahead and retreat.

the fact is the supreme court has recognized and reaffirmed that a woman has a right to an abortion -- this includes the very conservative court that anointed W -- it is not an unrestricted right, but it is a right nevertheless.

regarding medical marijuana, that issue is currently in dispute in california.

the question of whether abortion kills anyone is a moral and religious issue about which reasonable people differ, as you and i undoubtedly do. it's not the business of the state to decide which one of us is "right".

your argument about licensing doctors is specious because no one is seriously proposing it, and certainly no one, except the most extreme in the anti-abortion camp, is suggesting that abortion be totally outlawed. thus doctors will have to be trained and licensed to perform the procedure in some instances, no matter what. . .who's going to decide when a doctor's medical judgment is sound?

you also failed to address my point about the fetus's rights. under your proposed system, if a doctor and a woman conspire to have an abortion, both would be been involved in the violation of "fetal rights". there's just no logically or legally consistent way around it.

last but not least, prohibition put many distillers out of business. it also played a major role in establishing organized crime in america on an unprecedented scale. it put legal distillers out of business and gave a franchise to a plethora of illegal (and often dangerous) ones. prohibiting competent doctors from performing abortions will not eliminate the practice, it will only make it clandestine, dangerous and often deadly for the women who seek it.

mark

By Artemis on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 07:22 pm: Edit

"so, by analogy, you have the right to buy absinthe, but no one has the right to sell it to you?"

Who was put out of business by the prohibition? Drinkers or distillers? That answers your question and strengthens my point.

"how do you feel about the attempt to restrict doctors' ability to prescribe medical marijuana?"

It's not an attempt; in most places it is an a priori fact, but to my knowledge marijuana never killed anybody, so that's really a stretch.

"would you then forbid doctors from performing .."

I didn't say I would forbid anybody from doing anything. I said the state has a perfect right to license physicians to do only certain things.

"moreover, this is a specious argument."

It's sounder than yours.

"as far as i'm aware, no one who seeks to restrict the right to abortion"

The fact you continue to phrase it that way: "right" to abortion; shows me you haven't grasped what I said. I'm not going to argue it with you any further. I threw out an aspect of it that had not been mentioned. You can chew it to death if you want. I'm out of this.

By Absinthesque on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 07:12 pm: Edit

so, by analogy, you have the right to buy absinthe, but no one has the right to sell it to you? after all, alcohol is a dangerous drug. . .a pretty empty right, no?

how do you feel about the attempt to restrict doctors' ability to prescribe medical marijuana? to exercise medical judgment in their practices. . .this has been the main thrust of the feds' approach in california.

would you then forbid doctors from performing abortions under any circumstances? would you have the state dictate to doctors when a procedure is medically indicated?. a pretty intrustive regulatory system if you ask me.

moreover, this is a specious argument. as far as i'm aware, no one who seeks to restrict the right to abortion would only seek to prevent doctors from performing the procedure. if the rights of the fetus are recognized, the patient and the doctor would be co-conspirators in violating those rights.

mark

By Artemis on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 06:48 pm: Edit

These arguments about a woman's "right" to "choose" miss the point entirely.

Let's concede that a woman has a right to make any choice regarding her own body. I have no problem making that concession. Let's concede that she has a right to make the same decision about what may or may not be a second person, a person inside her body. I have more trouble with that, but let's concede that too for the sake of the argument.

Does she have a right to enlist a third party in the act of ending what may or may not be a life? Do the people, in the form of the state, not have the perfect right to license physicians to perform or not perform certain functions? If and when abortion is made illegal, the law will not take the form of "you, woman, are not allowed to do that", but "we will not license doctors to perform that function".

By Absinthesque on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 06:29 pm: Edit

i don't know anyone who has had an abortion who regrets it; this includes someone very close to me who was married and using an iud that failed. she already had several children at the time. the freedom to choose was a real blessing to her, and the unwanted child would have been born into a terrible situation. the idea that she might have been compelled to carry such a fetus to term is repugnant, and the fact is that if abortion were banned she would have found a way to abort illegally or abroad because she had the means to do so.

i also have close friends who have opted to bear children conceived accidently, even when the father is nowhere to be found. i totally support them in this decision, just as i support those who choose to have abortions.

the answer is a simple one. . .if you're against abortion, don't have one.

funny that many who would support our right to imbibe absinthe and worry about government intrusion on our sacred liberties would have government impose one set of beliefs about when life begins -- and when that "life" should have legal rights -- on people who have a different view, one that is often arrived at after considerable soul seaching.
mark

By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 03:58 pm: Edit

"we could, of course, encourage immigration instead, move people from the overpopulated areas where they are a liability, and move them here where they would do economic good, but that's unlikely to happen in the US, since we seem to have something against brown people. "

Undeniably we do, but in fact this is exactly what is happening now, both legally and illegally. The hotel and restaurant industry in particular tacitly encourages illegal immigration, as I believe was mentioned in an earlier thread.

When I hear people worrying about the low birthrate in the developed countries, I always worry that there is either a conscious or unconscious racial agenda involved. I'm not just talking about white folks either -- Japan uses a lot of foreign labor and similarly has a very low birthrate.

They also have an astronomical abortion rate, higher than anywhere in Europe or the US, because (I am told) the Pill is difficult or impossible to get in Japan -- and although Japan makes the best condoms in the world, Japanese men apparently don't like to use them. Japanese women aren't in a position to do much about this.

I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is anything but the lesser of two evils. All the same, it seems that restricting women's choices is not the way to get rid of it.

I'd rather give women more social and economic power, and put a little more social pressure on men who don't take responsibility for where their semen goes. I'm not talking about "deadbeat dad" laws, etc., just social attitudes. I don't think men who cause unplanned pregnancies get one tenth of the grief that women who have them do.

Why don't more men get vasectomies, anyway?

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 12:46 pm: Edit


Quote:

Out of self-interest, the current lack of children will affect those of us under 45 when we retire.



we could, of course, encourage immigration instead, move people from the overpopulated areas where they are a liability, and move them here where they would do economic good, but that's unlikely to happen in the US, since we seem to have something against brown people.

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 10:37 am: Edit

Bob said:


Quote:

To decide when a fetus is a person, other than conception, is arbitrary.



"Conception" is not a medical concept. There is no "moment" of conception. Do you mean the moment the sperm enters the ova, the moment they start unravelling their chromasomes, the moment the DNA merges, the moment of first cell division, what? Calling a zygote human, on a scientific level, is absurd. It is a mass of undifferentiated cells. It is no more human than a dermoid cyst, a primary ovum (pre-final division, with a full set of DNA) which spontaniously goes into mitosis and differentiation. As I said below, only about 1/3 of fertilized ova successfuly implant. Are these to be treated as human deaths? Do sexually active women have a responsibility to take amennorheric drugs to prevent them from allowing these "humans" to die?

LH said:

Quote:

All actions come with responsibilities, un-protected sex is not exempt from this.



Ah, but if you ban oral contraceptives and IUD's, it's pretty hard to successfully avoid making babies without avoiding sex.

Don said:

Quote:

I don't know any of them who live without a burden of terrible shame and guilt for their choice.



I don't know anyone who DOES have any burden of guilt over it. Most women I know sahre my parasite model.

LH said:

Quote:

We have an ageing population problem which is likely to well result in a future shortage of labour-force.



While their is truth here, we should NOT be encouraging UNWANTED pregnancy. There was a very good, tho less than probative, study recently that showed a strong correlation between the increased availibility of abortion in the '70's and improvements in economic and social conditions for the poorest Americans in the '90's, particularly the drop in crime.

Anyway, I'm less worried about the US and Europe than the developing world, where access to reproductive control is absolutely vital to their ability to survive.

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 09:05 am: Edit

LH, although you have a point about our future comfort in the US and Europe, government sponsorship and encouragement of pregnancy is just about the worst idea I ever heard. Have you ever looked at graphs regarding the carrying capacity vs. population in specific environments? Have you ever seen the world's population on such a graph? The more of us there are, and the closer we're packed in, the more certain a crash due to disease or scarcity. And with the ridiculously powerful and plentiful weapons we have, a new 'dark ages' might be a permanent condition. You think the prospect of ramen noodles and low wattage light bulbs is bad, how 'bout having to kill your neighbor over a gallon of potable water?

I think that stuff about the terrible burden of guilt and shame that women who have had abortions bear is overblown propaganda. Sure, some women have that experience, but why? Because they buy into a belief or dogma that tells them they're a murderer, or because they had sentimental, needy expectations about what the potential child might be to them that they're unwilling to put behind them? I know several women who have had abortions, and who were upset for a while and then got over it. If you ask them today, they'll tell you they're still glad they didn't bring an unwanted burdensome child into the world and screw it up with their emotional problems and financial irresponsibility. The idea that permanent guilt about abortion is somehow biologically programmed is wrong, but tends to have the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy on those who buy off on it.

Marc is right, of course. People should be more responsible, but government coercion wouldn't work in this case, and would cause more harm than good.

K.

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 08:43 am: Edit

Thanks Lord H. Noblesse oglige.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 06:07 am: Edit

Anyway at least in Western countries we should be encouraging pregnancy and birth.

We have an ageing population problem which is likely to well result in a future shortage of labour-force. Our governments should be incentivising and encouraging women to get pregnant (either in or out of marriage) and supporting the rearing of these children. The increased amounts paid by the state to support these children will be repaid when these people grow up, start work and pay taxes.

Out of self-interest, the current lack of children will affect those of us under 45 when we retire. A lack of labour-supply will mean, less return from our pension plans (private or state), less return on investments, increased cost of medical support and medical insurance, and a less stable future for us. No-one is self-reliant and the old rely very much on the young.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 06:04 am: Edit

Blackjack,

"I do differentiate between the pro-life MOVEMENT--meaning those who specifically desire legislation to ban abortion--and those who simply find abortion objectionable."

I belong to the former category but am an atheist and am definitely not anti-sex (anti-sex is anti-nature). I don't however see myself as part of any particular 'Movement' on this issue. However unlike Bob I strongly believe in the role of government to control and legislate for the common good.

All actions come with responsibilities, un-protected sex is not exempt from this. Too often today (with many things) people believe they have a right to fully enjoy benefits but evade responsibilities.

Marc, your post was great.

Don is right. Abortion is not just the same as putting on a condom, it is a terrible thing and should not be viewed as another form of contraception.

Hobgoblin

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 01:42 am: Edit

I know quite a few women who have opted for abortion. I don't know any of them who live without a burden of terrible shame and guilt for their choice. My wife (before I was around) carried one child to term and aborted a second one. Her son is now 19 years old, and there is a 17 year old ghost of the other still haunting her (no, not literally.) I suspect quite a few of you strident advocates of Rights or Choices or Life have never had to deal with the decision, or its consequences. Well, you are welcome to your opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

By Marc on Sunday, April 15, 2001 - 12:30 am: Edit

Men and women have become lazy, selfish and obscenely arrogant when it comes to abortion. For many, its a form of birth control. Oops, an unwanted pregnancy, get rid of it. I am ashamed to say that I've taken the easy way out on a few occasions and agreed to aborting children I helped conceive. As long as abortion is a readily available option, people will be lax in dealing with the responsibility of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. I believe in a womean's right to choose, but I think the choice should be made before conception.

By Bob_Chong on Saturday, April 14, 2001 - 10:12 pm: Edit

To decide when a fetus is a person, other than conception, is arbitrary. BJ's talk of viability only supports this.

Strictly speaking, "viable" means "capable of living or developing in normal or favorable situations." To condition the right not to be killed on being able to survive in a hostile environment is like saying, "If you are in danger, and I'm the only one who can save you, I have the right to attack and kill you; but if you can fend for yourself, I have no right to kill you."

We must not confuse technical medical problems with philosophical problems. When artificial wombs are available, viability will start at conception. Besides, a viability test is arbitrary, for it hinges largely on the competence of medical personnel, which can vary. The fact that others lack the ability to maintain your life does not justify or excuse the deliberate taking of your life.

By _Blackjack on Saturday, April 14, 2001 - 05:23 pm: Edit


Quote:

When does a foetus cease to be a parasite without a right to life?




When it is capable of life without specifically drawing its sustinance from a human being.


Quote:

Is it a parasite right up to the moment it sticks it's head out through a mother's vagina?




The time between viability (around the 22nd week under present technology) and birth is a grey area. The foetus is certainly not FULLY human; it's life does not equal or outweigh the life of the mother, unless she so choses. However, killing it arbitrarily is highly questionable. This is rarely an issue, since abortion at this time is not often desired, and poses as much or more of a health risk to the mother as carrying to term. Ideally, one would be able to pluck the foetus safely from the womb, stick it in an incubator and let it be adopted by someone who wants it. This is not feasibly under current technology.


Quote:

Does it remain a potential parasite when it is born and has the urge to feed at its mother's breast? Would a mother have a right to say I do not give you permission to feed from me, and discard the child?




Um, yes, she does have that right. It's called putting the child up for adoption. What she no longer has the right to do, since it no longer specifically derives its sustinance from her, is to kill it outright.


Quote:

The child would then, by your argument, have no automatic right to be fed or cared for by anybody.




No, it has the right to be fed, but it has no automatic right to derive its sustinance from causing physical peril to another human.


Quote:

Would you apply this to the rest of the population? Scrap social security etc?



I'm only talking about physical parisitism. The government gives my money to the old or poor, fine. But if it demanded that I give them my kidneys, it would be overstapping its bounds.


Quote:

The smear that anti-abortion is anti-women and anti-sex is nonsense. Yes many anti-abortionist do believe that human life begins at conception, therefore IUD's etc., in their opinion, kill human life. This argument has nothing to do with being anti-sex or being anti-women and surely is an argument worthy of respect.



I speak primarily of my first hand experience (including clinic defense) with the pro-life movement in America. When pressed on the question of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the absence of reliable forms of birth control, they almost always fall back on the assertion that people who don't want children should abstain from sex.

I do differentiate between the pro-life MOVEMENT--meaning those who specifically desire legislation to ban abortion--and those who simply find abortion objectionable. The former, in the US, anyway, are primarily composed of anti-sex, reactionary Christians. The latter are, indeed, composed of people from all walks of life whose reasons differ and whose certainty about the subject is not so great that they feel the need to impose it by force.

By Timk on Saturday, April 14, 2001 - 04:31 pm: Edit

meaning kallisti is the ID : - )

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, April 14, 2001 - 05:27 am: Edit

Blackjack,

Whether human life begins at conception, implantation or whatever would seem not to be relevant to your belief as regards their right to life. You believe that not all human's should have the same rights to life regardless of age, it all depends on whether they are considered as 'parasitic' human beings or not.

You're attitude regarding 'parasites' is interesting. The debate then changes from 'when does human life begin' to 'when does non-parasitic human life begin'. Different argument but just as tricky when it comes to where to draw the line (or not). When does a foetus cease to be a parasite without a right to life? Is it a parasite right up to the moment it sticks it's head out through a mother's vagina? Does it remain a potential parasite when it is born and has the urge to feed at its mother's breast? Would a mother have a right to say I do not give you permission to feed from me, and discard the child? The child would then, by your argument, have no automatic right to be fed or cared for by anybody. Would you apply this to the rest of the population? Scrap social security etc?

The smear that anti-abortion is anti-women and anti-sex is nonsense. Yes many anti-abortionist do believe that human life begins at conception, therefore IUD's etc., in their opinion, kill human life. This argument has nothing to do with being anti-sex or being anti-women and surely is an argument worthy of respect.

The whole trouble with the abortion debate is that too many people on both sides would rather stereotype, demonise and brand their opponents, than discuss and debate the issue rationally. Anti-abortionists are not in the main (as some would have us believe) either anti-woman (if they happen to be male) or submissive religious fundamentalists (if they happen to be female). This commonly held view (although not a view I suspect you hold) is just plain offensive bullshit and we need to get beyond the level of ignorant ill-informed name-calling.

I'm not meaning to be confrontational, just interested in your arguments.

Hobgoblin

(PS Anatomist, I respect your honest opinion on the issue of automatic human right to life (or not))

By Zack on Friday, April 13, 2001 - 12:27 am: Edit

I don't think I would want to stretch it far enough as to call HEAD the superego ( I was thinking ego)...But hey, its Freud, it's all a stretch anyway.

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 11:56 pm: Edit

A better personification of someones Id - Woofie Bonderosi

Does that mean Head is the superego and Pikkle is the ego? I am confused.

BC

By Zack on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 09:04 pm: Edit

"A simler answer might be simply that Alex represents the id, and we all have a little voice coming from our lizard brain that wants us to be like that."

A better personification of someones Id - Woofie Bonderosi

By _Blackjack on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Part of the genius of Kubrick's take on the novel was that he managed to simultaniously disgust us with the violence, horror and inhumanity of this world, while making us really LIKE Alex and think he's pretty flash. It was a good extension of what Burgess did with the language in the book. By using the dialect the way he did, he sort of forced us into Alex's head, into using his thought patterns.

You can see similar things in Kurasawa's films. He manages to make violence beautiful and horrific at once.

A simler answer might be simply that Alex represents the id, and we all have a little voice coming from our lizard brain that wants us to be like that.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 07:13 pm: Edit

What's the deal with fetishizing the details of CLOCKWORK? I saw the movie as a harrowing warning and meditation on violence, conformity and belonging, not something to enshrine for its coolness. Violence is a lot less cool when it isn't vicarious.

K.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Artemis,

Despite what the Brothers Grimm told you, being a hypocrite isn't the worst thing to be. In fact, being a real human being necessitates it: we're drawn to hypocrisy like moths to flame. Infernally consistent logic and nitpickers with blinders strapped to their heads are a relatively new innovation. Paradox and ambiguity is what makes novels more interesting than algerbra textbooks, and bioligical entities more interesting than solid state.

K.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 07:09 pm: Edit

"Milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or
drencrom which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready
for a bit of the old Ultra-Violence."

By Artemis on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 06:50 pm: Edit

"Actually Artemis and I had a very plesant conversation about both politics and religion."

DAMN! I should have known someone who actually remembered what I tallked about at that party would call my bluff. Justin, I (vaguely) remember our discussion about Jesus, Paul, etc. but not the politics. I would have sworn I stayed away from that. I blame it all on that evil fairy. Unlike the kid with the Mari Mayans, it didn't kill me, but it made me a hypocrite, which is worse. At least we didn't resort to name callling, and you never reached for your boot knife.

By Artemis on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 06:45 pm: Edit

"If you had gatherings with the same group, say twice a week in a variety of settings and for different time periods, I guarantee there would eventually be discussions and even arguments about morals, politics, etc..."

You're right of course. But then bad blood would boil up IN PERSON, where it would be much harder to save face, make amends, etc. than it is here on the Internet. So long, happy drinking ...

"This would be normal, as a steady diet of superficiality only appeals to the superficial, which this crew, including you, isn't."

Thank you. It's just that such discussions on this forum seem to inevitably "evolve" into name callling, and that makes me queasier than it once did. Maybe I'm mellowing with age or something.

By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Milk plus Drencrom, which gets you all sharpened up for an evening of fun, O my brothers.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 04:23 pm: Edit

It was Milk Plus.

By Wolfgang on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 04:21 pm: Edit

'CLOCKWORK ORANGE' I read that book (and saw the movie) maybe 12 years ago... They were drinking something at the begining of the story...Was it absinthe or am I dreaming ?

sorry for this ''off topic'' question ;-)

Wolf.

By Wolfgang on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 04:20 pm: Edit

I read that book (and saw the movie) maybe 12 years ago... They were drinking something at the begining of the story...Was it absinthe or am I dreaming ?

sorry for this ''off topic'' question ;-)

Wolf.

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Actually Artemis and I had a very plesant conversation about both politics and religion.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Artemis,

It sounds to me like you aren't really interested in knowing people, then. The fact that no one talked philosophy or partisan politics at the party demonstrates that it was a drinking party at a bar where people were meeting in person for the first time. The whole point of such parties is to keep things superficial and pleasant. I have never heard of anyone turning to a new acquaintance at bar and requesting a detailed exposition of their abortion politics. If you had gatherings with the same group, say twice a week in a variety of settings and for different time periods, I guarantee there would eventually be discussions and even arguments about morals, politics, etc... This would be normal, as a steady diet of superficiality only appeals to the superficial, which this crew, including you, isn't.

K.

By Melinelly on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 12:07 pm: Edit

actually, my wife and i spend a lot of time discussing these issues and many more... and i work at a feminist health clinic where we often discuss politics, particularly how to organize our member and donor base into action, etc... in fact, on thursdays at work we have "training" sessions where a hot topic is chosen and we debate for a couple hours.

we were able to put aside those things in nola however, and simply enjoy good drinks with good people.

put simply, politics divides people, but in the end, it's only what you believe. sometimes, you just have to set aside differences... after all, we're only human, and life is precious. i wasn't about to let my political leanings get in the way of enjoying the best absinthe i've ever had =)

By Artemis on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 11:47 am: Edit

The fact that in New Orleans, various members of this forum gathered and as best as I recall, NOBODY said a word about "gun control, abortion or 'why I hate George W. Bush'", as Wormwood put it, shows me that it's nothing but a bunch of Internet-only noise that flares up here when there isn't anything absinthe-related to talk about. I submit that it reveals nothing about the people involved, at least nothing I'm interested in knowing.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 10:09 am: Edit

The topic of on or off topic-ness has been thoroughly dealt with before. Aion is right. This forum is more interesting than most because it's like a family or a small town - people tend to hand around in close proximity, and you don't always like them or feel like hearing what they have to say. As a result, people develop personas, and the experience is less superficial.

Saying that people either are or aren't the personas they project online seems overly simplistic. Even if someone is lying and fabricating, it still reveals something about the real person... and the evidence accumulates over time.

BTW, this was a political thread from the start. The issue that started it off was media hype and a call to have something banned. That something happened to be absinthe, but I can't see any way of discussing media issues, political climate and legalities apolitically.

Unless one has been abducted and force fed the forum a la CLOCKWORK ORANGE, I suggest availing oneself of choice of not reading or ignoring what one does not want to read or doesn't care about.

K.

By Artemis on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 07:43 am: Edit

Thank you, Wormwood.

Amen, Don. The NOLA gathering surely taught some people that.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 07:21 am: Edit

So, you think people are what they post on message boards?

I suspect you would be wrong about that.

By Aion on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 06:32 am: Edit

Wormwood,
discussions about politics or whatever shouldn´t
be in an absinthe related thread, right.
But I think it is quite interesting to have
such non-absinthe-related discussions on the
absinthe forum, as you get more information
about who the other forum members are or what they think.
A.

By Wormwood on Thursday, April 12, 2001 - 04:34 am: Edit

I would like to see these threads stay on the subject better. (I know, someone did mention absinthe one time yesterday in this thread)

Why not start another thread or better yet take this crap to another forum. Absinthe death has nothing to do with gun control, abortion or "why I hate George W. Bush".

In the gun control or abortion chat rooms I'm sure they don't sit around dicussing absinthe.

By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Murder, killing, abortion, whatever... If a "person" has no consiousness, no self awareness, no personality, no plans, and has left no mark on anyone or anything anywhere, who cares if they're killed? Overpopulation is way more of a problem than virtual non-entities becoming actual non-entities. Of course there's the old 'potential' argument, which basically makes jerking off genocide.... couldn't we get HEAD in here to make some horrifically delightful limerick about foetus confections?

K.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 05:47 pm: Edit

I can't seem to edit, but I just noticed I contradicted myself in regard to the rate of pregnancy-related mortality in Africa. I double-checked my sources, and the correct figure, for Africa overall, is 870 deaths per 100,000, or .87%. For the worst nation, Sierra Leone, it exceeds 1800 per 100,000, or 1.8% It's almost that high in Afghanistan, but being a woman in Afghanistan right now sucks in too many ways to count. In eastern and western Africa, a woman's lifetime risk of dying in childbirth is 1 in 12.

Denying access to abortions (and especially very safe ones, like those with RU-486) in the US would be a set-back in women's progress towards equality. Denying it to Africa is a tragedy.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 05:24 pm: Edit


Quote:

Please remember that a woman is six times more likely to die giving birth than she is if she has a surgical abortion.



Last M&M stats I saw for the US had it at 10 times as likely. That being said, in the US, childirth is pretty safe, with about 10 deaths per 100,000. Surgical abortion is about 1 death per 100,000. It's in the developing world where childbirth can be a real hazard. In the worst places in Africa, it'a around 500 per 100,000.

Other interesting statistics: only 1/3 to 1/2 of fertilized ova ever successfully implant on the uterine wall. While many pro-lifers say life begins at conception (even tho there is no "moment" of conception, per se), medical science says PREGNANCY begins at implantation. So, by the extremeists' logic, sexually-active women routinely shed "people" with their menses. If we are to treat blastocysts as having human rights, sexually active women would not be allowed to menstuate...

Personally, I would have less trouble believing that the pro-life movement was not anti-woman and anti-sex if large parts of it didn't also want to ban IUD's and oral contraceptives.

By Melinelly on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 03:48 pm: Edit

"And yes, many pro-lifers are women, but those women are taught to be submissive to men (as Fundamentalist Christians). They are anti-women's rights."

christ, Term, there you go stereotyping again! that is such an ignorant statement totally generalizing in a subject with more nuances than a good la bleue =P

BC, there aren't really any figures for what you want, for several reasons, key being:

-confidentiality. you aren't required to state the reason for the abortion, and details are in individual case files.

-when it comes to rape, incest, etc... a majority of cases are not reported either for fear, shame, or disgust. unless there are court/police records linking a woman's pregnancy to a sex crime, you won't know unless the woman says so.

-not many women are about to say so.

i've known at least seven women who've had abortions. for the most part because they weren't in a position to handle the burden that pregnancy and child-raising are.

i also know women who are survivors of rape, child abuse, and/or incest... and most of those cases were not reported.

any numbers you are able to get on what percentage of aborted pregnancies are due to rape/incest/etc are going to be far lower than they actually are.

By Terminus on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Hobgoblin>

There is a movement in "the colonies" to outlaw all abortions whether or not the mother's life is in danger or whether or not the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

Some of the countries of the world banning abortions will not solve a damn thing. The Irish girls go to England for their abortions. RU-486 has made many early term surgical abortions obsolete.

And yes, many pro-lifers are women, but those women are taught to be submissive to men (as Fundamentalist Christians). They are anti-women's rights.

Please remember that a woman is six times more likely to die giving birth than she is if she has a surgical abortion.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 01:23 pm: Edit


Quote:

1. When does one believe human life begins?

2. Do all human beings have the same rights to life regardless of age?



Another thing to factor in is if one believes a parasite has the same rights as the host. As far as I'm concerned, even if it WAS a human being(which I hardly think it is through the first 5 months or), a foetus is still sucking nutrients directly out of the woman's blood, putting excessive strain on her organ systems, and placing her life at risk (less so in industiralized countries, but something like 5% of pregnancies end in the death of the mother in some parts of Africa...) If you asked me, nobody has the right to use somebody else's kidneys without permission.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Terminus,

You speak as if every case of abortion is carried out because a woman's life is in danger, or because the pregnancy is as a result of incest or rape. You know this is bullshit, anyone can get an abortion just because they want one (at least that's the case in the UK).

People should hold an opinion on abortion (pro or anti) based on honesty. The following questions should be considered.

1. When does one believe human life begins?

2. Do all human beings have the same rights to life regardless of age?

People are entitled to their opinions so long as these opinions are in fact based on honesty. However I believe your views on the matter are based on shallow, knee-jerk, ignorant bigotry. Your argument amounts to nothing more than 'all opponents of abortion force women to die in pregnancy etc'. Your arguments are just name-calling 'you're anti-women, you're anti-women'. You brand all 'pro-life' supporters as anti-women. Bullshit, many pro-life supporters are women. I've heard better thought out arguments in a Primary school playground. Surely you can do better than this.

Hobgoblin

By Tlautrec on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 10:07 am: Edit

I'm generally not inclined to join in the verbal jousting I read on the Forum, but I must wholeheartedly endorse Absinthesque's 100% on point characterization of the hypocrisy of the Republicans who went after Clinton, of the brazen theft of the presidential election in Florida, and of the duplicitous and disingenuous ruling by Rehnquist and his stooges which overturned the legally sound and well-reasoned decision of the Florida Supreme Court (read it, if you doubt me). Dubya may have lost the election in fact, but he "won" by 5 to 4. That's "democracy" for you.

By Pataphysician on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 07:42 am: Edit

Judging from his performance in just these few months as President, you can stick a fork in Bush. He's done. I predict he'll resign before his term is up, because the job is just not as fun as he thought it would be.

And I see the conservative group that hounded Clinton is now going after Tom (coup d'etat) Delay on bribery charges. Hahahahahaha!!

By Absinthesque on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 07:26 pm: Edit

funny that limbaugh spends eight years pissing and moaning about clinton, but when people on the left object to bush's stealing the election and handing the country over to the christian right and big business -- oil, pharmeceutical, mining interests, etc. -- any objections are dismissed as "liberal whining". i find it bizarre that any american interested in enjoying an illicit product like absinthe could ally him or herself with this bunch of moralizing hypocrites.

for my part i consider myself a green, social-democrat and civil liberatarian. i voted for nader in '96 because i didn't like clinton's spinelessness (leaving lani guinier hanging out to dry, etc. and his general lack of integrity). i unenthusiastically voted for gore this time around because bush scares the crap out of me. having said that, i'm convinced that both the vendetta against clinton and the 2000 election were unprecedented events in american history. . .not that i have any illusions about fair-play in the past, but never has there been a special prosecutor as nakedly partisan and political as starr. . .just remember how he got selected, what his background was and who his patrons were. . .compare it to walsh in iran-contra who was a lifelong republican. similarly, the behavior of republican activists in florida was tantamount to a coup d'etat. . .this ranged from purging voter rolls of minority voters falsely identified as "felons" prior to the election to intimidating vote counters during the recount after the votes were in. not to mention the supreme court's indefensible decision that was utterly inconsistent with the judicial philosophy of the justices who comprised the majority. while i had almost never agreed with rehnquist in the past, i had always respected his intellectual integrity. . .but no more.

now that he's stolen the election, bush is acting like he got a mandate, even though no one can dispute that he lost the popular vote.. i can only hope he won't do too much damage in the next four years. the next one won't be close enough for him to steal.

mark

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 12:16 pm: Edit

BC> I liked your last explantion a lot better.

Goblin> People who force a woman to carry a fetus to term even if the pregnancy endangers the woman's life are anti-women.

People who force a rape or incest victim to carry to term are anti-women.

People who shoot and kill abortion doctors are not "pro-life."

People who support state sponsored murder (the death penalty) are not "pro-life."

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Terminus,

There are people very much on the 'left' who also oppose abortion.

An honest position on abortion depends on when you believe human life to begin and whether you believe that humans are entitled to the same rights to live regardless of age etc. Support or opposition to abortion on any other basis is dishonest.

People opposed to abortion are not necesarily anti women or anti women's rights and the fact that someone is not a citizen doesn't mean they have less (or more) rights to live than someone who is a citizen. If the unborn do not have a right to live simply because they are not citizens the why stop with them, what about others who don't possess citizenship.

Hobgoblin

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 11:59 am: Edit

"BC says he's not sure he wants to make abortion illegal."

Not true. I said, "It's a huge leap to even assume that I want to make abortion illegal, which I never said."

Again, you're working around a false dichotomy. Would I ever abort a fetus? No. But would prohibition help? No.

Philosophically, I am opposed to abortion. If you want, I could address the mother's rights thing, but I find all things abortion pretty tiresome. It is the same boring, pedestrian shit over and over, and no one's mind is ever changed. I am not trying to change yours, and you will not change mine. And the last time I checked, no one on this board is appointing Supreme Court justices. But if you want to read something about libertarianism and abortion, goto: http://www.l4l.org/library/ac&lp.html

One thing I guess I haven't mentioned is that I am first and foremost a cynic. Gov't is incapable of solving most problems, IMO, and that is why I want them to stop trying. Also, I am a libertarian (small l).

BC

By Rtlplus3 on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 11:56 am: Edit

There is no Law in any land that can stop people from doing what they want. Drug law don't stop drug use. When abortion was banned in the US it did not stop abortions( the mother died too).FDA laws don't stop me from drinking Absinthe.

There are very few things people should go to jail for.

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 11:34 am: Edit

Bob Chong> To change the subject: What is the best absinthe you've ever had?

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 11:32 am: Edit

((...but there are some of us who think that freedom and liberty should be extended to the unborn.))

((I can see that some people think a fetus is not a person. I disagree. So what.))

Melinelly> BC just implied that a fetus was a person and had rights. Therefore, abortion is murder. Thus, I seriously doubt he is pro-choice, because that stance would be advocating murder.

But now BC says he's not sure he wants to make abortion illegal. Why not, BC? A ban on abortions would protect the rights and freedoms of that fetus. Then the mother would have no rights (especially if she has pre-eclampsia and dies trying to carry that fetus to term).

As I said, Libertarians have no credibility on this issue.

Nice backpedal, BC. :)

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 11:16 am: Edit

Melinelly:

Do you have a ballpark figure on what percentage of abortions are for rape and incest victims? I've always wondered about that.

Also, re: false dichotomies, you're right. Just because I believe a fetus is a person doesn't mean I hate women. That's a huge leap. Hell, it's a huge leap to even assume that I want to make abortion illegal, which I never said.

Thanks,
BC

By Melinelly on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:59 am: Edit

Term, i work for a feminist women's choice clinic, you're getting into my territory now so i have to say something. You should get your facts straight. Even if most Libs are anti-abortion, many still believe in a woman's right to choose. Heck, a MAJORITY of the REPUBLICANS in the Senate (i believe the number is 34) support a woman's right to choose even though most of them don't believe in abortion.

In Shrubs first day in office, he signed into effect by way of Executive Memo (not quite as strong as an Executive Order) what is known as the "Global Gag Rule" which bans Federal funding of international non-governmental organizations that offer abortion services or even so much as counsel women on abortion. A bill was introduced into the House and the Senate to repeal this Memo and rewrite the law so that a President can not single-handedly impose such a ban again (on any funding, not just concerning abortion). The bills not only have massive bipartisan support, but a third of the original COSPONSORS are REPUBLICANS.

Anti-abortion does not mean anti-choice.

We receive funding solely from individual donations at the clinic i'm working for, not a cent of federal or state money mainly because we want to remain self-reliant and not have to meet quotas on using dangerous drugs such as Depo-Provera. Probably 5-10 percent of our donors are anti-abortion and/or pro-life, but they support a woman's basic right to choose.

as BC pointed out, you're working your arguments around false dichotomies.

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:52 am: Edit

Are the unborn citizens?

You want to give rights to a month old fetus?

You want to give rights to non-citizens?

Hasn't the drug RU-486 rendered many surgical abortions moot?

Puh-lease. Your "freedom" stance is laughable at best. Coercing a rape or incest victim to carry to term is not supporting the ideals of liberty or freedom you misogynist pig.

Also, my "data" on Libetarians seeking gov't funds after the great midwest flood of 1993 is anecdotal. My dumbass uncle with no flood insurance was one of them. My former neighbor was another one.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:43 am: Edit

Oops--that was "libertarians+--not librarians or whatever the hell I wrote. The edit function is not working for me today. Sorry.

BC

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:41 am: Edit

"anti-abortion: a non-freedom position"

Huh? The liberarians are pretty well divided on this issue, but there are some of us who think that freedom and liberty should be extended to the unborn. I don't want to get into a whole abortion thing. I can see that some people think a fetus is not a person. I disagree. So what.


"they are the first ones in the gov't dole lines when their house gets destroyed in a flood or hurricane"

Where's the data on this? Please point me to it. I'd be interested in reading some case studies, research, or any evidence that backs up this claim. Or is it another hollow platitude?

BC

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:31 am: Edit

I have noticed that BC likes to take minor statements out of context and regurgitate his own biased twist on things.

BTW, what is BC's argument? That he hates whiny liberals and their faulty logic?

Libertarians would have some credibility if most of 'em weren't anti-abortion. They don't want to pay taxes or have gov't restrictions, yet most of them are anti-abortion (a non-freedom position) and they are the first ones in the gov't dole lines when their house gets destroyed in a flood or hurricane.

LOL @ Libertarians (and BC)

I am through with this masterdebator.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:27 am: Edit

Anatomist "has this well practiced routine of" by inserting his little nose where it doesn't belong. I knew you couldn't stay silent.

BC

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:22 am: Edit

Melinelly:

You alluded to the fact that the political spectrum is not some kind of linear progression. I couldn't agree more. You, as a socialist, and I, as a libertarian, do not fit neatly on the Dem-Repub line that many think defines political philosophy in this country. Disagreement with Bush doesn't make one a liberal, nor does disagreement with Clinton make one a conservative. It's a false dichotomy.

When I mention a spooj stain, that doesn't mean that I volunteered to be the defender of Bob Barr.

BC

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:12 am: Edit

Term,

I'd drop it if I were you. Bob has this well practiced routine of throwing out epithets and insulting insinuations, then whipping out the fake rubber vulcan ears or well-practiced postures of cloying smugness and innocence when he actually provokes. He will suck as much energy out of you as you offer. That being said, your argumentation here is scattered and lacks focus. Are you fighting just to fight, or is there some point? We now understand that you don't like conservatives, if that's it.

Just because this forum is about absinthe doesn't imply that were all rabidly radical, demented artists that would happily slice our ears off for the right woman... although I happen to be.

K.

By Joshua on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:11 am: Edit

leave it to a conservative to not like change.j/k mr bob

By Melinelly on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:10 am: Edit

geez... Term, you continue with your buzzwords and throw the same crap in the air over and over again.

when it comes to race, you are obviously not understanding where BC is coming from. you've got it quite wrong and throw labels at him that do not fit. you continue to assume that he will stand up for all these rebulican bogwipes simply by the logic that all conservatives are the same. as a libertarian (which BC has admitted to at least lean toward), BC believes in certain freedoms that the ideologies you claim he has go completely against.

Term, i've said about all i care to on this. please take a moment to try to understand the man you're trying to go up against before you continue on your misinformed tirade... and as for BC chilling out, he's as calm as always my friend, sitting back and reading your posts and having quite the chuckle... which is exactly what i will do if this continues.


LH, that was a great quote... and unfortunately quite true as we've come to see here. I should read more (some) Trotsky =)

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 10:05 am: Edit

"Meant," instead of "meet," gives that phrase a clearer meaning.

Leave it to a liberal to edit Shakespeare.

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 09:45 am: Edit

(("...a slight, unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands"

that was from Caesar (IV, i, 15-16)))

"Meant," instead of "meet," gives that phrase a clearer meaning.


Bob (Tommy) Chong> My BP is 120 over 65 (I think).

What is your obsession with JC Watts (a black man) nailing white women? The man nailed everyone.

The lily white KKK Republicans and neo-Nazis are the ones cautioning about the mixing of the races (not the liberals).

The right wing Southern Christian conservative Republicans are the repressed ones here, not the liberals.

Now those same Christians are the ones embracing Watts. The hypocrites ignore his "race mixing" past.

I thought that an absinthe forum would be the one place where I wouldn't find a conservative asshole bitching about "liberal whining" and "faulty liberal logic." My bad.

You need to drink a glass or two (or three) of absinthe and chill.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 08:44 am: Edit

you have resorted to namecalling

Change "resorted to" to "joined me in the" and you've finally said something accurate.

a regressive

a ditto monkey or freeper

a Rush Limbaugh ditto monkey

It's funny how I made one comment about liberal whining and it really set you off, Terminus. Must have hit too close to home for you. So much so, I have somehow become the target of your laughable ire.

So be it. With minimal participation on my part, I have watched you dance and backpedal with insults and faulty liberal logic. How's your blood pressure?

BC

By Grimbergen on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 08:40 am: Edit

"Is La Fee *really* worth 3 times the cost of a bottle of Neto Costa?"

umm...yeah.

By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 08:09 am: Edit

"...a slight, unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands"

that was from Caesar (IV, i, 15-16)

By Bjacques on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 07:00 am: Edit

Well, at least we've gotten away from the "evolution in action" nonsense. The only evolution, if any, is social. Individual evolution stopped when the first well-armed thug found a way to ensure the survival of his idiot offspring at the expense of smarter or gentler, but less well-armed fellows. Society will either evolve to satisfy more people less expensively or it will swirl down the toilet to the cheers of winners and losers alike.

(Internal server error. Apologies if this posts twice)

Absinthe is safe in England because it's booze, and the English like a good pissup (who doesn't?). The prohibition-minded Puritans decamped to America, so no need to worry. I can prove it on a graph.

That said, is there any place in London to buy a bottle of La Fee without being gouged. e-absinthe wants 38 quid? Is La Fee *really* worth 3 times the cost of a bottle of Neto Costa?

By Joshua on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 06:29 am: Edit

boy nothing gets people going like politics huh?

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 05:59 am: Edit

BC>

((You are a slight, unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands.

I have no idea what a freeper is nor a ditto monkey.))

Well, you have resorted to namecalling, so you could be a Rush Limbaugh ditto monkey.

A freeper is a Free Republic radical right person. American terrorist Tim McVeigh is a freeper (for about another month).

Oh, and if you want to end this, that's fine by me.

By Terminus on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 05:58 am: Edit

BC>

((You are a slight, unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands.

I have no idea what a freeper is nor a ditto monkey.))

Well, you have resorted to namecalling, so you could be a Rush Limbaugh ditto monkey.

A freeper is a Free Republican radical right person. American terrorist Tim McVeigh is a freeper (for about another month).

Oh, and if you want to end this, that's fine by me.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 04:06 am: Edit

"Scratch a Liberal and you will find a reactionary underneath." Trotsky, L.

At least with the 'right' you can clearly see your opponent.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 03:48 am: Edit

Heiko,

If the Republicans didn't have any real means to attack Clinton, he sure all hell got a real rough ride from it. In this case either Clinton was so incredibly incompetent to be unable to handle this and survive (in which case he's unfit to be President), or the Republicans are so damn good at playing politics that they can finish off a President with only the weakest of evidence.

Clinton has no-one but himself to blame.

Why would any Democrat supporters (I don't include yourself here) want to defend him now. Clinton's actions will have cost the Democrats valuable votes in the Presidential elections. The elections were so close that if he had behaved appropriately and handled the situation with dignity than I suspect the USA would probably have Al Gore as President today. If I was a Democrat supporter today (I'm not), I'd want Clinton hung, drawn and quartered.

Hobgoblin

By Absinthedrinker on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 - 01:58 am: Edit

Frater

Interesting post. Certainly MAFF have more to worry about at the moment than absinthe. It is odds on that they won't be around after the enquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic.

By Melinelly on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Term, i suggest you stop. the ditch you're digging is getting so deep you'll soon lose sight of the light of day. upon the grounds which you are making your stand, no minds will be changed no matter whose name and what statistics you throw out.

as for "liberal" being a pejorative, i know it at least goes back as far as the 1960s originating amongst leftists and radicals, not making its way into conservatives sling slang until more recent years... and be careful about claiming to be a "progressive" as well. that term is hotly debated by those of us on the left today, and as you proove often goes hand in hand with "liberalism."

there is no progression in reform, only in revolution. =)

Jonathan, thanks for the info. i agree with your closing sentiments.

By Bob_Chong on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Term,

You are a slight, unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands.

I have no idea what a freeper is nor a ditto monkey.

But I have enjoyed watching your blood pressure rise. Thanks!

BC

By Frater_Carfax on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Getting back onto topic, I would be surprised if the UK government did actually restrict absinthe sales- the sale of absinthe has already been raised in the UK parliament- I found this in the parliamentary proceedings from 1999.


Absinthe

Viscount Thurso asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will take steps to warn the public that absinthe, in addition to alcohol, contains the hallucinogenic agent thujone.[HL2789]

15 Jun 1999 : Column WA16


The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): Absinthe, like any other food or drink product sold for human consumption in the UK, must satisfy the current food safety legislation. This includes regulations which set maximum levels for thujone in flavoured foods and beverages. A Public Analyst's report has confirmed that thujone is not present at significant levels in the product which was recently introduced on to the UK market. There is therefore no need to provide specific warnings to consumers about this drink.


Viscount Thurso asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in view of the fact that the sale of absinthe is banned in many European countries and in the United States, they are considering a similar ban in this country.[HL2790]

Lord Donoughue: The Government have no plans to introduce such measures. Absinthe, like any other food or drink product sold for human consumption in the UK, must satisfy the current legislation on food safety. Provided it does so, there is no obstacle to its importation or sale.


It would appear to me the British government would know a case of straight out alcohol poisoning when it occurs, and that the thujone issue is not sustainable.

regards
Jonathan

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Another thing, BC>

I am surprised that a conservative such as yourself didn't refer to affirmative action as "reverse discrimination."

US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, NSA Director Condoleeza Rice, and US Secretary of State Colin Powell all benefited from affirmative action.

I would have been happy if none of those people reached positions of power.



Did China start executing the navy personnel for espionage yet?

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Bob Chong> I'm sure JC nailed every black woman in OK and every Native American woman on and off the reservations, too.

In JC's college days, nailing white girls was a status boost for young, black men (especially in ultra-conservative Okie). Today it "ain't no thin'."

What is your hangup with race?

BTW, when did "liberal" become a dirty word?

Did the rapist Reagan make it a dirty word? Or was it the glutton Rush?

I myself am a progressive. Are you a regressive?

You aren't a ditto monkey or freeper, perchance?

Backpedal my ass!!!

By Heiko on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:02 pm: Edit

I think I already mentioned it some time ago: there was at least one politician in the 20th century who never had any affairs, didn't drink, didn't smoke...I'm speaking of Hitler... - Politics? Who cares about politics as long as the president doesn't cheat on his wife... ;-)

The prosecution of a politician because some chick gave him a blow job has nothing to do with politics and only shows the political opponents don't have anything real (means politics) to attack him. This also applies to Republicans being attacked by Democrats (or anyone else) - these methods are in general demagogic substitutes for a lack of political ideas.

Anatomist and Terminus,
the fact that so many people die of car accidents makes me live my life without any fears or sorrows: Whatever I do, it's definitely less dangerous than driving a car ;-)

By Bob_Chong on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 07:46 pm: Edit

JC Watts - nailed every white girl in Oklahoma and has at least two illegitimate children

No, you're right. That's not offensive. It was happenstance that the word "white" appeared in the sentence. I can see clearly how it was an accident, how you are truly colorblind. You are a man of great sensitivity.

I could care less that JC Watts slept with white women

Nice backpedal. How's that shoe taste?

By Malhomme on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Ahhhhahahahahaha!!!! That's the funniest thing i've ever heard you say!!! To bad it's true.

Jim

By Anatomist1 on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Ol' Dubya has some bigger fish to fry indeed. He can't seem to decide whether it's more important to ruin the last inklings of american wilderness, poison the drinking water, or start a war with Russia and China at the same time. I think I better stock up some survivalist supplies... I'm not well prepared at all.

K.

By Melinelly on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 04:20 pm: Edit

i understand where BC is coming from. i'm not necessarily going to criticize him unless he says something off kilter.

for instance, i understand his racism comment... whereas you seem to take it in the traditional liberal sense of the word. he was taking a stab at affirmative action as a racist policy, (assuming that "races" are on a level playing ground that they can equally attain the same levels of prosperity), in that it can be taken as saying that "minorities" can't get by without help, thereby indirectly calling them lesser beings than whitefolk.

i don't agree with that particular take, but i understand where BC is coming from with it. i do, however, have my beef with affirmative action. it was structured all wrong, and the resources needed to make it work were never fully put in place. the system of racism itself isn't inherintly fucked, however when put into de facto practice for hundreds of years by those who've been in power (traditionally white anglo-saxon protestant males), we have a system (by way of economic segregation that is primarily categorized by way of racial and ethnic boundaries) that "minorities" for the most part have to struggle in for equality whether they like it or not. by "minority" i mean simply historically-oppressed... which can translate into "race"/ethnicity, religion, sex, and sexuality.

subvert the dominant paradigm!

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 03:58 pm: Edit

(A snippet from Jet Magazine in 2000):

Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, the only Black Republican in Congress, believes the Confederate battle flag should not be flown above the South Carolina state capitol building, USA Today reported.

"I personally believe the flag should come down," Watts told USA Today.

But Watts did not criticize Republican presidential candidates Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for not pushing for the Confederate flag to be removed. "I understand where Bush and McCain are coming from," Rep. Watts said.



He understands where they are coming from?

Please explain, Mr. Watts.

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 03:48 pm: Edit

BC>

I could care less that JC Watts slept with white women. What I do care about is that he impregnated at least two of them (there may be three or four illegitimates fathered by Watts) and that he had to be sued to pay child support.

But now that Watts is a "highly moral right wingnut Christian Republican," we are supposed to forgive his past sins. JC Watts is the epitome of the token black; he is the only black Republican in Congress.

The only reason he was elected to Congress is because he was a star football player at the University of Oklahoma. Those Okies love their football.

Again, I criticize his behavior (fathering children out of wedlock and not taking responsibility for his own actions). I could care less if he was fucking caucasians, negroids, mongoloids or Martians.

I could care less that OJ Simpson was married to a white woman or that Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman or that Quincy Jones was married to a white woman. It is the behavior I am concerned with (OJ and his throat slashing technique).

Only a racist would see racism in my post.

You are not a racist, are you?

By Bob_Chong on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Quote: "JC Watts - nailed every white girl in Oklahoma."

Wow, Terminus, I always assumed that liberals were inherently racist, thus their affinity for racial politics (e.g., the affirm. action idea that people of color are incapable of succeeding without a government handout). You have come through with flying colors, pun intended. It really, really matters to you that JC Watts isn't a prolific fornicator but that he slept with--OH NO!--white women! Lock up your children! The negro congressman is loose!


BC

P.S. Melinelly: you were right on with pretty much everything. Mud slinging is an equal opportunity activity, as you deftly pointed out. (And yes, I tend towards the libertarian philosophy). Kudos.

By Melinelly on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 02:01 pm: Edit

the term "liberal whining" doesn't belong to the republican party. just because he used it doesn't mean he's a republican. i'm a socialist and have used the term "liberal whining" on several occasions. i don't know what BC's political affiliations are, but if i were to guess i'd say libertarian. in any case, that the current administration has bigger fish to fry is true. that Joshua is a liberal whiner, well, only time will tell =) i don't think the statement he made was liberal whining, but it could easily be made by one with such persuasions which is probably why BC called him such. just good fun ribbing which it seems Joshua has taken in good stride.

for a great song on liberals, check out "Love Me, I'm A Liberal" by Phil Ochs =)

no worries eh? so please keep the mudslinging to a minimum.

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Melinelly> BC accused Joshua of "liberal whining."

((neither major party is any more moral or clean than the other. both IMO are full of shite.))

Yes, I agree, but Republicans preach that they are the party of morality (even if they are not).

By Melinelly on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit

hehe sorry BC, all that wasn't a response to the spooj. just got off on a rant there. you know me =)

By Melinelly on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 01:16 pm: Edit

as for where the spooj stain came into play in the "conspiracy"...

it was evidence, thus a tool to use against slick willie in the whole sex scandal case that arose from the whitewater investigation that arose out of dung digging into the clinton's financial past that came about when willie began to gain clout in the "democratic" party and it became clear this man was going to hold a position of power...

there is no system in place to keep track of politicians every move throughout their careers, so it's expected for rival political parties to go about digging in eachother's pasts in order to gain public influence and favor...

in short, there are no REAL conspiracies WHEN it comes to the inside workings of the major political parties and their players... what there is... is a GAME in which all players are fair game and just about anything goes... hypocricy, double standards, deceit, manipulation, secrecy, etc...

clinton didn't distract from what he was doing, he simply denied. the republicans are great at distracting and keeping personal crap out of their politics. when questioned about his mistress, daddy Bush simply told the press that was none of our damn business. clinton on the other hand said huh i don't know what yer talkin' about... and left the door open to the nitpicking that led to the whole "he lied while in office, let's git him!" debacle. he just didn't play his cards right.

they're almost all sleaze, and republican, democrat, or otherwise, there is no honor in defending any one of them.

By Melinelly on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 01:04 pm: Edit

terminus, i didn't detect BC playing partisan in this thread. he didn't exactly defend the bushes by saying the first lady had better things to do than chase the green fairy down... he was simply stating the truth... and that bit about clinton's "spooj" stain on monicalifrajalistic's dress... well, that's just plain funny and his comment was too.

throwing out republicans into the "immoral" mixture is sad partisan dung heaving... and besides, i don't think you really want to get in the ring with BC ;)

neither major party is any more moral or clean than the other. both IMO are full of shite. and anyone trying to play the morality card should do full well to stay the heck away from the Democans and Republicrats... and most "american" organized politics in general =)

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Bob Chong> Are you sure you want to pass judgement on Slick Willie?



"Immoral" Republicans in heat:

Dan Burton - cheated on his wife and fathered a bastard

Henry Hyde - cheated on his wife

Newt Gingrich - cheated on his 1st and 2nd wives

Bob Barr - cheated on his wife and paid for two girlfriends to have abortions

Bob Livingston - cheated on his wife dozens of times with staffers and hookers

Rudy Guiliani - cheated on his wife AND his girlfriend

JC Watts - nailed every white girl in Oklahoma and has at least two illegitimate children

George W. Bush - paid for his girlfriend to have an abortion

By Bob_Chong on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 12:20 pm: Edit

What part of the right-wing conspiracy was the spooj stain?

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 12:09 pm: Edit

There will always be 'right-wing' or 'liberal' or 'left' conspirators out to 'destroy' any President or Head of Government, it's all part of big politics. A shrewd politician is one who doesn't give his opponents the ammunition to gun him down. If you're not 'clean enough' to be able to stand up to being exposed or 'clever enough' to be able to manage such exposure then don't stand for President. Clinton destroyed himself.

Hobgoblin

By Absinthesque on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 11:09 am: Edit

Terminus >>
I detest Limbaugh, Ken Starr et al. I think there was a "right-wing conspiracy" to destroy Clinton -- though he did a pretty good job of abetting his detractors. I believe W and his brother stole the election and that there was a criminal conspiracy to disenfranchise minority voters in Florida. I think the attacks on Hillary and Chelsea were indefensible. I applaud those who would expose Limbaugh, the reporter who dug up W's drunk driving conviction and Larry Flynt for unmasking the hypocrisy of Henry Hyde and his ilk.

But I believe that attacking Laura Bush for something she did as a teenager, when there's no indication that her actions were anything other than an accident, is beyond mean-spirited. In addition, it will encourage Limbaugh and his cohorts to paint her as a victim. In short, it's both mean-spirited and bad strategy to dredge up this incident and intimate that it's anything other than a personal tragedy.

Mark

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 10:37 am: Edit

Absinthesque>

Limbaugh is a thrice-married, college flunkout who said (falsely, according to Kenny Starr) that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster. When Rush was grossly obese, he called Chelsea Clinton a dog (yeah, like she picked her parents and deserved that from a man who has an extremely slow metabolism).

Laura Welch Bush did actually kill someone when she ran a stop sign, yet she faced no punishment. Why would you object to my post? Turnabout is fair play--especially since my post is the truth and Rush Limbaugh is a liar.

By Absinthesque on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 10:17 am: Edit

I have no use whatever for Bush and his ideology, but it's unfair to dredge up his wife's involvement in a car accident 37 years ago to attack him, even if he did participate in covering it up. His own driving record and his alleged cocaine use are fair game, since they reveal him for the hypocrite he is when it comes to getting tough on "criminals". . .But attacking his wife only plays into the hands of the Limbaugh Brigade. Besides, W is so clearly incompetent that he's going to destroy himself; his show is already starting to unravel.

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 09:29 am: Edit

anatomist1> I agree with what you posted, and I especially agree with your national debt comment. I think it was Senator Lloyd Bentsen who said *paraphrase* "Sure, anyone can look prosperous if they are writing 200 billion dollars worth of bad checks each year."

By Anatomist1 on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 09:20 am: Edit

Actually the "Just Say No" campaign WAS a smashing success... politically. It helped drum up support for the booming military-law enforcement-prison-industrial complex, and averted the public's eyes from the fact that Watt was looting natural resources, the extreme christian right was getting unprecedented say in policy making and control over the Republican party, and that the national debt was growing like cancer on steroids.

K.

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 09:19 am: Edit

anatomist1>

Well, that settles it then; For the good of the children, it is time to ban automobiles. :)

By Anatomist1 on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 09:03 am: Edit

Speaking of media hype, I just heard on WPR that in 1999 28 children/teenagers were killed in school by firearms... over 800 were killed by automobiles to and from school. Violent death in school is at one of the lowest points in many decades, yet from the news, you'd think they were shooting galleries.

K.

By Petermarc on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:21 am: Edit

the last message was for joshua...i was too slow to post...

By Petermarc on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:19 am: Edit

don't ask neil rogers that...

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:14 am: Edit

Bob Chong> Part of the appeal of absinthe is that it is illegal in the US (and many other countries).

BTW, US Customs couldn't find their own ass if their head was up it (and it is).

Liberal whining? Since Nancy Reagan's "Say No To Drugs" campaign was such a smashing success, ;) I think Laura Bush should start her own "Say No To Killing Your Classmate" campaign.

Oops. Too late. Read below:

http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/73715_MRSBUSH04.html



from THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, May 4, 2000

"Report Finds Fatal Crash Attributable to Mrs. Bush"

"The wife of Gov. George W. Bush was responsible for a traffic accident that killed a high school classmate in Midland 37 years ago, according to a newly released accident report. Investigators said a 1963 Chevrolet driven by Mrs. Bush - then Laura Welch, a high school senior - ran a stop sign and struck a Chevrolet Corvair driven by Michael Douglas. Copies of the accident report - parts of which are illegible - were released Wednesday by Midland City Attorney Keith Stretcher after state Attorney General John Cornyn held that the information was public....Mr. Stretcher, the Midland city attorney, initially declined to release any information about the accident on the grounds that it involved minors and therefore was exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. He also contended that disclosing the information would violate the parties' privacy rights. Police listed two violations as contributing to the accident, both by Mrs. Bush. One checked box read "disregard stop sign or light," and the other was illegible....Both drivers were Robert E. Lee High School students. Neither was drinking, and no citations were issued, according to the report."

By Joshua on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:05 am: Edit

i have changed it to miami,so now you can fret no longer,in all due respect,i dont see what the spelling of my location has to do with the point i try to make.

By Joshua on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 07:48 am: Edit

mr chong,
may i remind you this is the second time you have reminded me of the mispelling of miami,this means either A: im too thick to get the point.or B:i could care less over a small point like spelling,it obviously gets the point across or else you would have no idea what i was trying to spell,in the first place.as for absinthe being already banned,lots substances are already banned,but that doesnt discourage people from starting pet projects in hopes of eliminating the substance world wide,or make a name for themselves.absinthe is banned here in the states,but it is easily obtained.

By Don_Walsh on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 07:47 am: Edit

That could have been Bacardi 151 run in the yard and the kid would be just as dead, would anyone call that a 'rum death'? I mean other than in the antique usage sense of 'rum' = bad.

By Bob_Chong on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit

Josh, "first lady bush can start her own anti absinthe campaign"? There are bigger fish to fry than worrying about an already banned liqueur. You can do better than liberal whining, can't you?

BTW--Miami is not spelled "Maimi." You might want to change that in your profile.

BC

By Joshua on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 05:31 am: Edit

its sad he died yes,but like don said,"evolution in action".common sense would tell someone,that 3 pints of 70% spirits wouldn be good for you.i wonder how long its going to take for this news to be on cnn stateside,and first lady bush can start her own anti absinthe campaign

By Terminus on Monday, April 09, 2001 - 05:08 am: Edit

Yes, yes--the boy choked to death on vomit, but the surprising thing is that it was someone else's vomit.

They still don't know whose vomit it was, because it is not like you can dust vomit for fingerprints.

By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Tim K.: "I would like to know how he died -choked on vomit? would alcohol poisoning act that fast?"

It could. He certainly would have tried to vomit, but might have stopped breathing even without any airway obstruction. From what I've read here, we're talking about 20 or more shots consumed all at once, with no time to metabolize any of it. Here's a cheery little table:

Blood Alcohol Level (mg/dl) -- Clinical Findings

<50 Limited muscular coordination, driving not seriously impaired

50-100 Driving increasingly dangerous, incoordination, impaired sensory function

100-150 Mood, personality and behavioral changes; driving is dangerous, marked mental impairment, incoordination, ataxia

150-200 Prolonged reaction time; driving is very dangerous

200-300 Nausea, vomiting, diplopia, marked ataxia

300-400 Hypothermia, dysarthria, amnesia

400-700 Coma, respiratory failure, death

From Smith, M. _Ethanol._ In Noji, E;, Kelen, G. and Goessel, T. (eds): _Manual of Toxicologic Emergencies._ Chicago. Year Book Medical
Publishers. 1989. Pg. 250.

Leave a copy lying around at your next party.

I'm sad to say, I too have awakened in a pool of my own spew. Not for a good many years, thankfully. And I had a sheltered childhood - my wild years began in my late teens when I'd moved out.

By Chrysippvs on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 09:58 pm: Edit

I love that show....

By Zack on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Jackass

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 07:06 pm: Edit

The evolutionary theory behing risk taking males (which can be observed in many species) is that if you can do really stupid things, but survive, you must be particularly fit. If you can hop playfully past the lion instead of running away (which some antelopes do), you must be REALLY tough.

Which means, sadly, that MTV's "Asshole" is the pinnicle of our evolutionary path. God help us all...

By Timk on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 07:04 pm: Edit

You might have a problem, as its probably attached by thirty feet of chain which drags along by his ankles

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Adolescent males have always sought danger and behaved in foolishly suicidal ways. It's probably hard-wired. I remember reading about the excavation of some cave with a precipitous, cliff-like drop inside. At the bottom they found skeletons dating back to pre-homo sapiens: all young males. I don't remember the exact details... What is new however, is the notion that a risk-free life is an entitlement, and that every mishap or accident should be compensated by the government or through lawsuits.

I agree about rave fashions. There's no way I'm going to take somone seriously who goes around walking on their pants, or precariously hobbling and waddling on giant platform shoes. Talk about evolution in action. When I see some kid in gargantuan pants that keep falling down every few seconds, I get the urge to steal his wallet and make my getaway at a leisurely stroll...

K.

By Timk on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 04:11 pm: Edit

I can only think that this came from inexperience, although I would like to know how he died - choked on vomit? would alcohol poisoning act that fast?

If it was inexperience, then I sympathise,
At one of the first house parties I went to I grossly underestimated the amount I could handle, I ended up drinking an absolutely rediculous amount of spirits in a short time, and spent four hours unconscious while being sick - fortunately my friends at the time stayed with me - being sick while unconscious is bloody dangerous as you know, and one poor guy ended up having to scoop vomit out of my mouth so I could breathe - I have no doubt that If they had left me I would be dead. It was fortunate for me, but could so easily be unfortunate for others - you cant really blame the kid - we all do stupid things.

Oddly, about four hours after passing out I woke up in the recovery position, completely sober only to find that police in riot gear were battering on the door

Tim

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 03:00 pm: Edit


Quote:

Despite the various quibbles and objections about which study means what, or how long the cognitive defecits last, the bottom line for me is that, even with only a few studies done, there is a pretty clear indication that ecstacy involves a higher risk of making you stupid than other recreational drugs, including alcohol




Oh, alcohol is almost guaranteed to make you stupid, for a few hours anyway :)

The problem with fully assessing the risk involved in MDMA use is that, unlike rats, we can't chop up the brains of ravers just to see what's happening. We have to rely on things like radiological marking of seratonin transporters, metabolite levels in spinal fluid, etc. There also hasn't been enough time to honestly evaluate long term use. It certainly is a risky drug, especially for those who already have mood disorders. How risky has yet to be determined.

My main problem with it, however, is the way it makes kids dress. What is it with the big pants..?

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 02:52 pm: Edit


Quote:

With chronic abuse, amphetamine-induced psychosis, hardening of the arteries, and various problems associated with malnutrition are par for the course.



Well, use to the point of psychosis is not that common (except, for some reason, in Japan...) I'm not saying it's good for you, however. I'm just saying it isn't clearly worse than, say, alcohol...

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 02:47 pm: Edit


Quote:

You get used to it pretty fast and if you're after a "kick" you raise the dosage to levels that is maybe a years' supply for therapeutical usage...



Umm, the question of methamphetamine tolerance in general and MDMA tolerance specifially is not that clear cut. There is still a lot of contraversy regarding this. A tolerence to the euphoric properties, as well as the sympathomimetic pressor effects has been observed, but they aren't so sure about the dopaminergic and noradrinergic properties. Keep in mind there are narcoleptics and hyperkinetics who use amphetamine for many years without its losing its efficacy. It certainly doesn't create the level of tolerance you see in chronic opiate/opioid users.

Again, not a glowing endorsement as a lifestyle choice, but proper perspective.

By Artemis on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit

"Artemis, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the mother had little involvement in the boy's life. Every case is different. Sometimes, kids do shit like this because their parents are TOO involved... it's a release, it's a way of lashing out silently (until, obviously, they die like this). Sometimes, the parents care and try to do what they can... and sometimes it's just never enough."

I assume nothing. I said "more than likely" and I stand by that, because that's what I see all around me, not parents who are too controlling, but parents who can't be bothered. I agree with the rest of your post.

Ted is right on the money, however. People probably thought the hysteria would blow over in France a hundred years ago as well, and with a lot better reason than we have to think so, because back then absinthe was an industry that employed people, generated millions of dollars, etc. And look what happened.

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Not all of the studies on MDMA were done on rats, so difference between rat and human physiology seems like a disingenuous objection. Some of the studies showed a widening of synapses throughout the CNS in addition to mucking up serotonin receptors. Some of the studies involved giving simple IQ-style neurophys tests given to users of various drugs, and MDMA had by far the most pronounced effects. Despite the various quibbles and objections about which study means what, or how long the cognitive defecits last, the bottom line for me is that, even with only a few studies done, there is a pretty clear indication that ecstacy involves a higher risk of making you stupid than other recreational drugs, including alcohol. Plus it costs a fortune. Fuck it.

K.

By Anatomist1 on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 11:55 am: Edit

I haven't read anything about the sustainable therapeutic use of methamphetamine (i.e. crystal meth), but as a recreational drug it seems to be among the least defensible. With chronic abuse, amphetamine-induced psychosis, hardening of the arteries, and various problems associated with malnutrition are par for the course. Add to that a nice measure of self mutilation: amphetamine induced psychosis commonly includes tactile hallucinations that feel like bugs crawling under the skin which lead to vigorous attempts to extirpate them. Mmmm... now that's good clean fun.

K.

By Heiko on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 11:45 am: Edit

Blackjack,

I guess there's a major difference in therapeutical doses of methamphetamine and the dosage of illegal ecstasy pills. You get used to it pretty fast and if you're after a "kick" you raise the dosage to levels that is maybe a years' supply for therapeutical usage...

Melinelly,

I think police oppression even forces youths to drink faster, like prohibition brought people to drink more alcohol. From what I experienced I can only say I found youths in Germany to make less dangerous drinking games and binge drinking than American youths. I don't say they drink less here, not at all, but they seem to learn faster how to drink 'like grown ups' - that means have a beer and drink it like a drink, not like a drug.
I've never seen someone emptying a sixpack as fast as some of the guys I met on a student exchange in the States (I was 17 then). Of course they had to, because every minute you carry a beer bottle, you risk being arrested...

Everything that is illegal seems to be consumed in higher doses and in a more dangerous manner than legal drugs.
I guess if coffee was illegal, people would drink it by the liter instead of sipping some cups of it over the day...

By Melinelly on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 10:59 am: Edit

Heiko, there are many many reasons why people drink until they die... but in situations like this, it's usually a case of too much adrenaline, peer pressure, and inexperience. Statewide, year after year, there are several cases of alcohol poisoning deaths of young people that mimic this case. Every year, those stories make press... and then they fade away until the next one. That "absinthe" was involved may give this case a little more attention and airtime, but nevertheless unless a rash of absinthe-drinking related deaths occur, it will fade away like all the others until the next kid dies.

That said, there's something wrong with a society that such a cycle will continue. Prohibition has been tried, and failed. Some education is in place, but obviously not as effective as we'd like. Policing is more often than not oppressive. There's no easy solution...

Artemis, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the mother had little involvement in the boy's life. Every case is different. Sometimes, kids do shit like this because their parents are TOO involved... it's a release, it's a way of lashing out silently (until, obviously, they die like this). Sometimes, the parents care and try to do what they can... and sometimes it's just never enough.

Usually in cases where the parents are absent from a child's life, the death is more introverted. This was all out attention grabbing, showing off, trying to impress people... not like most shooting cases and such where kids are alienated and lash out most extremely.

Whatever the case is... the kid is dead, his mom is distraught, people are looking for blame, tears will be shed, and this will fade away... sadly... and the root of the problem will most likely not be dealt with.

By _Blackjack on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 10:51 am: Edit


Quote:

I don't know if this was where Heiko was coming from, but MDMA appears to be the most genuinely dangerous drug to come along since IV crystal meth or megadoses of PCP.



Um, I wouldn't go that far. MDMA is certainly as bad as methamphetamine, since it IS a methamphetamine, but people can use methamphetamine theraputically for years without major problems. The studies indicating MDMA nurotoxicity in rats are less than conclusive when it comes to humans. There is indication of some decrease in seratonin receptor density in chronic MDMA users, it is as yet unclear if this is reversable. It is not a safe drug, but neither is alcohol. Alcohol is probably the most generally toxic substance in common use.

And large doses of PCP are probably LESS dangerous than small doses. Small doses lead to dissociation, aggitation and hallucenation, which lead to the rare "wild man" effects for which it is notorious. Large doses lead to sedation or coma, and eventually respiratory failure, no worse than large doses of alcohol or barbituates.

By Tabreaux on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 10:34 am: Edit

What seems unfortunate and aggravating to this case is the fact that the way absinthe in general seems to be marketed in the UK begs for misunderstanding and abuse. Just peruse the websites for the Czech products (which comprise the bulk of the UK market), and you will find all kinds of nonsense, including claims of hallucinogenic activity, the Czech ritual which resembles that of heroin, etc. Combine this with ignorance and immaturity, and I see a recipe for abuse. Just as inferior absinthes in days of old caused enough of a problem such as to make the banning of all absinthe a reality, I see a stark parallel here with the inferior Czech products. The only difference being not the content of the product itself, but the way it is presented to a generally ignorant (in matters absinthe) public.

By Artemis on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 09:01 am: Edit

"As for the boy's mother, who acts or speaks in an objective partial manner when they are grieving?"

I'm not sure about the partial part, but as to acting or speaking objectively when grieving, I do. My family does. My friends do. Almost everyone I have ever known does. If anything, they are even MORE objective at those moments than they've ever been in their lives, because there's nothing left to be at that point. Death has a way of shredding pretense.

The boy was stupid. His mother's comment was stupid and selfish. And when I said stupid-ass mothers before, I wasn't even talking about her comment to the press, which was probably just taking the bait the sorry bastards offered her. I was talking about raising a boy who would do such a stupid thing. She was more than likely little involved in his life, but now she wants the government to get involved in millions of lives.

Don is 100% right on this one. Evolution in action.

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 08:12 am: Edit

Amen, Lord H., to your comments of the gentlemen of the press. Phew!

As to the rest I think you are being awfully kind.

Personally I regard the demise from stupidity of such a one as evolution in action.

By Heiko on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 07:48 am: Edit

Marc, I thought maybe if they found ecstasy in his body the hype might turn against this and they'd forget about Absinthe - and it might be a possible reason why someone would drink until he dies.

Ecstasy and alcohol is a very dangerous combination for your kidneys and your liver. The bad thing is, it is much fun drinking lots of alcohol together with ecstasy, it pushes the effect but you don't get drunk. You can actually drink a lot more alcohol than you usually could - but it is at the same time more dangerous for your liver and kidneys.
So, under the influence of ecstasy a lot more people would be stupid enough to drink themselves dead.

Anatomist, right, it actually is a lot more dangerous than people believe. It's at least as dangerous as cocaine (addiction potential and depressive side effects...), but the brain damage sets in even faster... I have seen some of the old-school techno dj's being interviewed at the love-parade on tv recently. Like right out of the hospital for the mentally ill...it was fun to watch, but I didn't understand a word and I guess they did neither...

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 03:48 am: Edit

Don

Attempting to drink a yard of any spirit is not a sensible thing to do, but who has never done something foolish in your life that may have resulted in their death? If they have then the fact that they remain alive is a result of good luck rather than sensible judgement.

Is a person who dies as a result of a potentially fatal foolish more stupid than someone who is alive after a potentially fatal foolish act? If this boy was stupid then so are most of us.

As for the boy's mother, who acts or speaks in an objective partial manner when they are grieving? I've known grieving people physically attack innocent onlookers when faced with the sudden death of a loved-one.

The only thing we can be sure of is that the event will not have occurred as the press will have reported it. Exaggerating events, taking peoples comments out of context and dressing the event up in order to sell more newspapers. Reporters and the 'popular' press are leeches, the dregs of society.

Hobgoblin

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 03:08 am: Edit

Drinking a yard of beer or ale is a stunt.

Drinking a yard of hard liquor is a suicidal act of stupidity.

People die of stupidity every day.

I'm sure we are all sorry this boy is dead. However that does not make him any less stupid.

Kneejerk reactions from his half informed mother add little to any discussion though they make great press.

Bacardi 151 or Chartreuse Green would have killed him just as fast. Everclear, faster.

It takes a Herculean effort to imbibe that much that fast; nevertheless, acute ethanol poisoning IS possible and potentially fatal.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, April 08, 2001 - 12:06 am: Edit

Let's put things in perspective. It would be really surprising if this very tragic incident leads to absinthe being banned in the UK. Parliamentary time in too precious at the best of times for the Government to use it on absinthe (unless there are a substantial amount of votes to be gained by doing so which is not the case). Anyway with a General Election looming, along with the current Foot and Mouth crisis this is even more unlikely.

We should not be too quick to call this teenager or his mother stupid. A boy has died, a great many of us have done foolish things in our lives that could have resulted in our death (I certainly have), he was probably no more foolish than most, let's not piss on his grave. As for his Mother, BC made the right point, she has just lost her son, surely we can give her opinions some lattitude (we should put ourselves in her shoes for a minute). Her loss is vastly greater than than would be the loss of my legal right to drink absinthe.

Anyway I'm unlikely to lose the right to legally drink absinthe, but if I did it wouldn't be 'the end of the world', most forumites from the USA seem to cope reasonably OK.

Hobgoblin

By Msjekyll on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 11:14 pm: Edit

aah, but estasy is so much more "in", "now", Hoping the news will latch on to that rather that absinthe....

By Anatomist1 on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 10:58 pm: Edit

I don't know if this was where Heiko was coming from, but MDMA appears to be the most genuinely dangerous drug to come along since IV crystal meth or megadoses of PCP. Do a Medline search and you'll find over a dozen studies done on rats, chimps and humans that implicate even non-chronic use in long-term to permanent cognitive problems similar to Alzheimer's Disease. I've read first-person testimonials on Lycaeum.org from ravers who mourn the loss of their ability to think clearly, remember, and learn. Although I'm not in favor of half-informed press demonization of anything, I think the alarming real information about MDMA is underreported, if anything. If I had a teenage kid, I'd supply him or her with a smorgasbord of liquor, pot, psychedelics... maybe even coke and heroin if it would keep the 'ecstasy' away.

K.

By Marc on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 10:04 pm: Edit

I don't understand heiko's comment
"I hope they're gonna find alot of ecstasy in his body..."

Why would one hope that? So that the press will have two "mindbending drugs" to demonize?

I say people should be allowed to drink or take whatever they want. There will always be fools who fuck up. The kid who died was one such fool.

By Anatomist1 on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 09:28 pm: Edit

This reminds me of the parents who tried to sue Judas Priest and Ozzy for their childrens' suicides... except nothing like that has really happened yet. What we have now is the first words extracted from a grieving mother by a reporter in a time of strain. I say wait unitl she dedicates her life to an anti-absinthe crusade before we release the dogs and cock the hammers. Chances are she won't. Talk about hysteria...

The notion that everyone is entitled to a risk-free life is definitely a contemporary malaise that should be challenged. Accidents happen, stupidity has consequences, and not every misfortune entails extravagant compensation. However, as I said before, nothing has really happened yet, so I prescribe a large chill pill.

K.

By Bob_Chong on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Lord H:

Your post was great. Rupert, you could learn a thing or two from reading it. Some mother just lost her baby. It is easy for her to lay blame instead of turning that blame inward (which she will undoubtedly do at some point and then for the rest of her life). Fucking hell, people. Some kid is dead because of his own foolishness, and everyone's worried about their next head. Let's hope there's no hysteria from this, but indignant strutting does nothing, either.

BC

By Rupert1029 on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Lets start ADAFUM:
Absinthe
Drinkers
Against
Fucked
Up
Mothers

By Rupert1029 on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Prediction for England:

A new MADD, but this time MAAD.
Mothers
Against
Absinthe
Drinkers

By Artemis on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 05:49 pm: Edit

"His mother has called for the 'mind bending and dangerous' drink to be banned."

Stupid-ass mothers should be banned. Would go a long way to solving all other problems.

By Petermarc on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 04:42 pm: Edit

people? i hate people!

By Perruche_Verte on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 04:34 pm: Edit

I don't think it matters whether Mari Mayans is "real" absinthe... that's what it's sold as, and that's what will be demonized if it isn't made clear that this death was caused by the improper use of *alcohol* -- not by thujone or anything else in absinthe.

The sad, banal truth of the story: Young people, especially people just becoming adults, often do stupid, dangerous things. Most of them survive, some do not.

By _Blackjack on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Bloody hell, a yard? That's nearly 40 oz of alcohol at 140 proof...

By Midas on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 12:25 pm: Edit

"His mother has called for the 'mind bending and dangerous' drink to be banned. "
-For gods sake, most things are dangerous if imbibed in sufficient quantities. I mean, water can kill you if you drink enough of it.
I think I can safely say we were all just waiting for some idiot to do something like this. Here we go...
-Robert

By Chrysippvs on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 11:28 am: Edit

"i hope they follow up this article with some real scientific reasons why he died and not use emotion to put absinthe as the culprit. although news papers dont make money by calming people down."

LOL....can you say British Press....By the end of this absinthe will have caused him to see the devil and he leaped from Big Ben...

By Dehydret on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 11:09 am: Edit

i hope they follow up this article with some real scientific reasons why he died and not use emotion to put absinthe as the culprit. although news papers dont make money by calming people down.

By Malhomme on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 10:00 am: Edit

The good news is that Mari Mayans isn't even absinthe, as far as anyone can tell. It is just labeled as such.

Jim

By Absinthedrinker on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 09:09 am: Edit

Looking at the article more closely it seems that he had had several vodkas and around 2/3 bottle of absinthe. The bottle pictured in the article is Mari Mayans which he it says he had bought cheaply in Andorra. My guess is that he drank it neat as not many 18 year olds at parties observe the absinthe ritual.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 06:52 am: Edit

Yes it is. It holds about 3.5 pints and you need to keep the round base part of the 'yard' turning steadily to have any chance of drinking the whole yard of ale in one go. Great fun at parties until some idiot drops it and smashes it.

A very tragic story about the teenager who died, you can't really blame his mum for her response. If the absinthe was diluted something like 3 or 4 to 1 with water it would be unlikely that the alcohol in 3.5 pints would be anywhere near enough to kill someone (neat absinthe of course would). Anyway very few people anyway can drink more than half of the yard's contents in one go (a very tricky procedure), and then half of what they do 'drink' is usually spilt all over them in the process. If the yard of absinthe came on top of a lot of other booze consumed, then this would be a different matter.

Hobgoblin

By Petermarc on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 05:46 am: Edit

isn't a 'yard' one of those stupidly long glasses that are used for chugging beer? (i would think it would have broke the bank before bending anyone's mind) yikes, as heiko referred, just about any alcohol could kill someone like that...

By Heiko on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 03:21 am: Edit

Damn, I hope they're gonna find a lot of ecstasy in his body (which might be a good reason why he's been drinking so much alcohol).

How many people die from alcohol daily (which is btw. the only possible way to die from Absinthe - pretty easy to kill yourself drinking a bottle of 70% alcohol!), how many from car accidents? Do we ban alcohol or cars? No...

--I mean look at the forum and you'll see Absinthe makes people stupid (*highly IRONIC*).
And of course you'll become a skinny wreck from drinking it, just look at Ted (*even more IRONIC* just in case somebody doesn't get it...)

By Absinthedrinker on Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 02:18 am: Edit

Well it has happened. The Daily Mail has an article today about a teenager who died as a result of drinking a 'yard' of absinthe at a party. His mother has called for the 'mind bending and dangerous' drink to be banned. The Mail is a notoriously up-tight family values campaigning newspaper. Watch this space.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation