http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/887/8.../887_bouley.asp

I'm all for personal responsibility, but when the author trivializes what happened to Matthew Shephard by comparing his carelessness with the woman who sued McDonalds for the coffee being too hot, he loses any credibility with me. I don't care what Matthew was doing or proposing in that truck that night. He in no way deserved or is any way responsible for the atrocities brought upon him. He had the life beaten out of him for being gay. His attackers approached him first, led him on. We've all been guilty of ad judgement at some time or another. Usually the consequences are not quite a severe as Matthew.

What's next, blaming rape victims because they are too provacatively dressed? Or a mugging victim who shouldn't have been carrying all that cash? I agree we're an overly litigious society, but that doesn't mean all suits are unworthy. But too many are completely frivilous.

YAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNN. First off, only straight women and (increasingly fewer) gay men watch QaF--I don't want to hear about your brother's cousin's mailman's token straight friend who watches--and secondly, so the f**k what that they show guys *gasp* having sex in public, *gasp* doing designer drugs, *gasp* acting like ho-bags. That stupid, reductive cliche ignores the fact that there's two lesbians raising a kid on the show and that Ted is a Republican in all that entails--ableit a Republican who runs a porn website! I'm sick of conservatives pulling out that kind of bogus argument to justify discrimination. An overwhelming majority of molestations are by breeder men, so why don't we nip that in the bud by castrating the lot of 'em and throwing the rest in prison? Just to be safe, you know.

I worked for a foaming-at-the-mouth born again-Christian once. I never came out to anyone at this job \"officially\"--though I talked about opera enough that everyone knew, hahaha!--but I know for a fact that I was denied a raise and a promotion because he suspected I was gay and \"didn't approve of my lifestyle\". So I didn't make it an issue and eventually left on my own terms with a huge severance package that allowed me to pay off my bills and travel. With maturity comes knowing when to pick your battles. So, Karel, hon? Quit being so judgemental about other's personal situations. It's really just more tedious moralizing.

Pardon me if I'm wrong but wasn't Stonewall and the aftermath played out so that we didn't have to be like the heteros if we didn't want to? Settling down with one man for the rest of one's natural life and not doing any chemicals stronger than a Red Bull--mmmmm, Red Bull--is a nice idea but it's NOT the only way. So you're tired of whiney people not taking responsiblity? Well, I'm tired of breeder-boot-lickin' wannabes who base their existence on what \"they\" think. The heteros have absolutely ZERO moral high to stand on and I'm really bored with them pretending they do.

Yeah, you burger eatin' tub of goo, that's all very nice, but we'll all pay higher medical premiums because of your "f**k it" attitude. How typical--if it's something these moralizing prigs enjoy, it's sloughed off, if it isn't, it's a force of "repression".

Karel? f**k off. Love, JA.

[ April 15, 2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

I really don't understand this phrase: "I am sick to death of people like him, people who put themselves in situations where the outcome can only be one thing."

Does this mean that if you wear tight jeans to certain bars in SFO you're guarranteed to get groped without your consent? Where is this bar again? wink

Seriously, I've been groped with my consent and I've ben groped without my consent. And they're two different things. I think that guy at a right to take offence to being groped, although, if he was that offended he should have left the bar.

"Karel's" blame the victim stance, well....

Well, he has a point. I think. He hasn't made it very well. Personal responsibility and the choices people make certainly play a part in how things turn out for them. It's not, however, the only factor. In most of the specific cases cited, personal responsibility played a minor role.

The tightjeans guy who got groped? Obviously wacko. I've been groped in far less provocative circumstances. I didn't throw a hissy fit and demand an apology or accuse the perp of invading my space. You ignore it and move on or deck the guy and take responsibility for your own actions. I recommend the former. Imagine the Court TV coverage: tight jeans, seedy gay bar, guy gets groped and beats the groper up. Wonder how that one would turn out?

The real mistake here is in assuming we can carry the logic from this trivial incident to far more serious matters. Next thing you know we're talking about blaming Matthew Shepard for his own beating death. Did he make some irresponsible choices? Maybe. I wasn't there. Had I been, maybe I would have looked the killers over and told Matthew accepting a ride wasn't a good idea. Maybe the killers really deceived him. In the end, Shepard's possibly bad decision in no way mitigates the guilt of those who beat him to death. They are 100% responsible.

Then there's the much pilloried McDonalds coffee lady. You know what? I'm glad she sued their pants off. Many times I have been handed cups of coffee, or more often tea, that have been too hot to hold in my hand never mind drink. Does the vendor have no responsibility here? The issue in this case was whether McDo irresponsibly heated the coffee well beyond what would have been required to serve a proper hot beverage. What about McDonalds taking responsibility for their choice in turning the temperature on the damn coffee urn up to the molten lava setting?

I don't know why anyone would stay in the same room with Mike Tyson never mind strip, get drunk and get into bed with him. Nevertheless, no means no. If Mike can't control his super-manly urges, then he belongs in a jail cell. Bottomline - even after going to his room, takin' your clothes off and gettin'in the bed, she can still change her mind and make the responsible decision not to have sex with Mike Tyson. Did she make some bad decisions? Yeah. Is she to blame for her own rape? I don't think so. A bad choice doesn't equate to guilt.

I've never watched Queer as Folk so I can't really comment on how accurately gay people are portrayed. Television is not noted for it's accurate portrayal of anything, so I'll assume the worst. The author, Mr. Bouley, apparently hasn't known many straight people during his life. I've met many, so I wanted to do what I can to dispell some of the misconceptions some other gay people may have about straight people. Straight people are not all sittin' at home helping the kids with their homework and doin' the laundry. There is no depraved, stomach-turning sex act that gay people might engage in that is not practiced by many, many more straight people. Most of these "disgusting" acts were, in fact, invented by them. I have seen many more straight people doing far more vile things on TV than I have gay people.

If gay people get a bad rap, it's because of pure blind hatred and prejudice - not bad press.

[ April 16, 2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Torgauer ]

So...many...objections...to...this...article... Can't...organize...thoughts...properly...

I will comment on the McDonald's thing. As Torgauer mentioned, there's a lot more to that case than is usually mentioned. The plaintiff, who was an 81-year-old woman, received 3rd-degree burns over her groin, thighs, and buttocks (requiring skin grafts and a week-long hospital stay) from coffee that was over 20 degrees hotter than from other restaurants. The McDonald's Corporation had been ignoring complaints about the temperature of their coffee for years, and she only sued after McDonald's refused to compensate her medical bills. And in the end, the judge reduced the settlement to $480,000, not the millions that we usually hear about. (McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit)

Rather than being an example of the need for tort reform, the McDonald's lawsuit actually shows us just how important this kind of litigation is to consumer safety.

Yes, I know this is a bit off-topic, but this issue is one of my pet interests, and if I can discredit any part of this guy's argument, I'll feel better about myself.

I agree with most of the posters statements. And as usual what PhillyFan thinks is some slam dunk argument for something, is considerably, well, not.

We are all for personal responsibility and common sense, blah, blah, blah. Did we really need an article like that to say that. And then we really didn't need the overreaching nonsense about Matthew Shepherd and some of the HIV comments. Not only are they heartless, they also jump to a lot of stupid conclusions that author could not possibly know to be true.

Another example of making things totally black and white, that are not totally black and white.

My problem with the McDonald's coffee thing is this. Okay fine it was too hot by normal standards. But wasn't she trying to hold it between her legs while driving? What the f**k did she think would happen? I mean, even if it were 20 degrees cooler, she still would have sustained injury. And she, or her lawyer, still would have found some way to sue.

Obviously they should have sued the car manufacturer for not having a cup holder. wink

How much do you want to bet that the guy who attacked Laz Diaz and got beat up by the Royals players, will end up suing Kansas City for the attack. Some people really don't take any responsibility.

Josh

I drive with hotstuff between my legs and never get burnt.....

This is why I don't post politically-oriented material here any more. If you even try to present some sort of alternate view on something, you're made out to be some kind of idiot. Matt, where exactly did PhillyFan say "Hey, guys, this is a slam dunk argument for personal responsibility?" I love that you're the guy who then laments people "jumping to a lot of stupid conclusions."

And ah, yes, that evil old black and white. But you guys are the ones freaking out because this author presented a more nuanced view of the Matthew Shephard case that doesn't fit with the more popular black-and-white view of MS as some paragon of innocence callously murdered by homophobic rednecks. To most gays, the MS case is a study in black-and-white. MS good, killers bad. As it should be, because ultimately the killers are to blame for their actions. But I don't think it is heartless to suggest that what MS did was really no better than hitchhiking. He willfully placed himself at the mercy of complete strangers. And all for the sake of getting laid. At least hitchhikers want to actually get somewhere. Bad, bad idea. Did he deserve to die for it? No. But did he place himself in a dangerous situation? Yes. For the life of me I can't imagine why it is even remotely controversial to say that.

There's certainly an argument to made for taking personal responsibility in the gay community and in our country. This guy (i hesitate to call him a writer; he's one of those "personalities" that overstuff our modern culture, albeit a minor one) doesn't even begin to make a coherent case.

Even if McDonald's did heat that coffee up to extra high, I daresay that regular hot coffee would burn the crap out of anyone's thighs as well if spilled: Lesson for the day: Don't store hot coffee between your legs while driving....duh!

His comments on Matthew Shepard are so asinine that I sort of hope that he does walk around south of market a bit more late at night; a good kick in the ass is just what he needs. Or a brain makeover...on second thought, a heart transplant is what's needed. Shame on him for implying that Matthew Shepard deserved it cause the murderers were shady - they manipulated him, for god's sake, a fatal mistake, yes, but who could know that those two twisted white trash figures were that full of hatred and rage...What a self-loathing ass**** this wannabe writer is...

And how many friends and lovers of all of us had one condom break, one slip-up, one case of bad judgement, and ended up with a fatal disease called AIDS? We are human, we are fallible....Of course we have to be responsible, abundantly so when possible, but not everyone out there who's HIV positive got it because of their promiscuous lifestyle as this guy implies. Shit happens: welcome to LIFE.

What is it really that upsets him so about this guy who didn't appreciate being groped? Is it that no one thought he was attractive enough to grope? Or is it that anyone in a dirty gay bar deserves a little inappropriate groping? He sounds like a homophobic homo...

And the topper is that he lets us all know that if we're not specifically doing this or that, than we're f**king up the gay cause...and yet he's so disturbed by one dirty look from a biker that he takes the rainbow sticker off his car. He's just frightened easily, that's what I get from the article. He's got no balls. He's only bold when it's easy.

The advocate should consider screening their "writers" before hiring them.

[ April 16, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

WHOA, you guys taking this way way way too serious...

Didnt he say he felt bad about the MS kid? Wasnt he just trying to say, this is what he could have done differently. He's just telling people to think before they put themselves in a bad situation. Maybe it's best not to get into a car with 2 strangers. Maybe i shouldnt walk through south central LA at night by myself...

Hey, why dont some of you go ahead and rainbow up the car, drive out to the biker bar and have an "outfest"... Get back to me on the results. Taking the sticker off your car at a biker bar is being homophobic on his part? I'd call that smart.

What's wrong with calling out the druggie crowd? Have you guys been out to a club lately? There happens to be a HUGE drug culture out there in the gay world. Do str8 folks use drugs? of course they do. Do we have a higher % that do, i'm sure of it.

You dont think has a bit of a point that there are no gay leaders? Isnt it true? name one? Our leaders, our faces are the ones in drag walking down the street at the gay pride parades. I think his point is, until we all get to the point where mainstream people come out and show their faces.... the only thing soccer moms in burbs see about gays are the drag queens leading the parade...

HIV? Amen if he stands up and says, if you contract it... it's your own fault. I applaud anyone who stands up and says, if you have unsafe sex, that is what will happen.

I rarely, if ever, agree with PhillyFan on topics such as this. However, I would like to note that he posted the article link without comment. Inferring his views on the topic is not fair to him or particularly constructive.

My biggest beef with the article is the author's assertion that the gay movement stalls because of things like QAF. No, I say the gay movement stalls because gay men like him say stupid things like a freaking TV show is sufficent evidence to deny equal rights. Happily most gays and lesbians are able to discern between a fictional TV show and real life.

If so, maybe we can explain the difference between TV (in general ... most "reality" shows, including court shows, are equally fictional) and reality to the rest of the population?

Are you on drugs, Phillyfan? You sound like it with some of your comments. Of course there's a drug culture in gay clubs; there's a drug culture in virtually every nightclub scene around the world but somehow you've surmised that it's worse in the gay world? Get a clue. Stop hating homos so much.
I'm glad you and that writer are so brilliant that you can second guess Matthew Shepard (you can't even respect him enough to call him by more than his initials?) without being there, knowing what really went on, or meeting the two murderers - who by the way, weren't strangers to him. They were locals and familiar to everyone at that bar.
The writer of that article walked down Van Ness to the Lone Eagle (or Lone Star or whatever) just barely south of market, it's hardly a bad stretch of town...
There are plenty of gay leaders out there, you're just too blind to see them. They work hard, love their friends and family, and are proudly OUT. If drag queens are all you see, than you simply don't see the bigger picture. Or maybe you just don't want to...
Your comments about contracting HIV are so ludicrous and immature that they don't deserve responding to, but I will anyway. People make mistakes and accidents happen. If you're perfect and above it all, than you can afford to condemn those who screw up...but it's rather obvious that you're not, so keep your eyes open, a karmic lesson is probably coming your way at about a hundred miles per hour....

[ April 17, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

There is ... to the point that Congress, led by Joe Biden of all people, sneaked an anti-rave measure into the "Amber Alert" bill (which is, to start with, good cause aside, primarily about the need of politicians to appear to be doing something about whichever probably is stirring public emotions at the moment). The bill, which includes fairly extreme penalties, is aimed at (primarily) straight "raves" on the assumption that rave=Ecstasy=death, but it presumably will affect circuit parties as well.

In case anyone was wondering.

Wow, another tolerant, compassionate liberal. PhillyFan, I have to congratulate you. Ump25 and I managed to piss some people off when we were posting on here, but best I can recall neither of us moved another poster to wish HIV infection upon us. Well done.

For what it's worth, I can't find any evidence that he knew these guys before that night. If he knew them so well, I would think he would have had some idea whether or not they were really gay. But whatever. I found this on a tribute-style website:

MS Website

Compiled from the local newspapers:

It is alleged in court papers that Shepard met McKinney and Henderson at the Fireside Lounge where McKinney and Henderson told Shepard that they were gay. McKinney and Henderson left the bar with Shepard and took him northeast of Laramie sometime between the evening of Oct. 6 and the morning or Oct. 7, near the Sherman Hills subdivision where he was tied to a fence, beaten in the head with the butt of a .357-caliber Magnum, terrorized, robbed and left for dead, the report said.

And finally, the reason we even know so much about this case is because it was such a rare, bizarre occurrence. I don't have any exact numbers on this, but I would be willing to bet that most gay guys are not murdered. The fact that this killing was such a shocking, earth-shattering and newsworthy event is evidence that such crimes don't happen all that often.

[ April 16, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

One is too many.

This thread's intentions doesn't seem to be to discuss "personal responsibility" so much as what is right or wrong about how people excercise it.

Matthew Sheppard was not irresponsible to discuss his sexuality wherever he wished. His killers were irresponsible to express their disapproval by killing him.

The other so-called cases of irresponsibility mentioned in the article could probably be seen in the same light.

I'll admit I only scanned the article.

[ April 16, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Also I don't see where HIV was wished on anyone. I think it would be a sad day for our community if someone did that. That's also a pretty serious accusation. Take care.

PLEASE NAME A WELL KNOWN LEADER?

Can you tell me where is MS deserved to be beaten to death? If you cant say there are lessons to learn from that... am i the real idiot? Whats wrong with saying it's not a good idea to hop into a car with 2 strangers, gay or str8.

Drugs????????? Oh, you need to get your head out of the sand, pay attention. Most of the people out there dancing with their water bottles... uh huh.... I dont use drugs, never ever...

HIV????? OH PLEASE, if everyone went out and had safe sex and the only thing they had to worry about was a condom breaking... the HIV problem would be solved. Sorry, but if i have sex and something like that happens, i knew the risk. The problem is people who go out and have unprotected sex, or get drunk and have unprotected sex, or take drugs and have unprotected sex. Better yet, why are you doing the big nasty with someone who you dont know their HIV status?

McDonalds sold their coffee at 185 degrees fahrenheit. Doesn't anyone find that ridiculously high? Drinks shouldn't be served if they are nearly boiling. Liquids at that high a temp. don't cool after just a few seconds. It's the woman's fault that she spilled the coffee, but no one expects to receive very serious third-degree burns for spilling coffee on one's self.

oh? then pray tell. what DOES one expect to see after spilling piping hot coffee on ones leg?

The reason why the coffee is so hot? Because people like you and me, expect hot coffee that stays hot for a reasonable period of time. no one wants a luke warm coffee. that's right. do you want your coffee to "cool after a few seconds"? That's a sure recipe to have people go back to the counter and say "Can you warm this up a bit? It's not very hot".


about the Matthew Shepard discussion. Disagree as you may about what Philly wrote. but he does say many true things.

1. The gay culture (especially the gay club/bar scene) is loaded with drug use. Drug use that everyone seems to just ignore.

2. It is not a good idea to get into a car with a couple of strangers. I'm not saying Shepard deserved to get killed. But the point made by Philly is valid.
Just as you would caution a little kid about going with strange adults, so you should be wary of tricking with strangers.

[ April 16, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

But if McDonald's coffee is cold they'd have no customers for it. They're already losing marketshare and have posted a quarterly loss....

I love how this hot coffee story is often cited utterly out of context. But is anyone surprised?

And seriously, the depravity, if one wants to think in those terms, depicted among straights beats anything gay on TV. But should we stop showing it too because it upsets the sensibilities of the Islamic fanatics or fundamentalist psychos here?

what the hell does depravity mean? LOL

Thank God. For what it's worth, the New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project (AVP) noted a national drop from 17 to 12 anti-gay murders (these were the ones in its reporting regions) from 2000 to 2001. The total number of national anti-gay violent acts (again from its reporting regions) fell from 2,135 to 1,887 from 2000 to 2001. The new report for 2003 is not yet out.

The report also notes underreporting, and the AVP site also notes several unsolved crimes.

More on all of this available at New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project

From the article:

Me too. He was blocking the road in a "little Nissan Sentra."

If all the discussions were like what you just posted (which I snipped only for space, not because I agree or disagree with what you wrote) then there wouldn't be a problem with anyone being made out to be some kind of idiot. But sometimes, people make themselves out to be idiots with repeated inane posts.

i nominate this as the post of the year.

Missing the point there, ever so slightly. I just re-read the comments proceeding yours and they are almost completely in agreement with what you wrote. What people were objecting to is Karel's ham-fisted linkage of the stupid f**kin' McD's coffee case and MS. That's all.

And W1865, if Razorback TX starts a thread called Bush: Psychotic Attack Chimp????--hey Raze, how ya doin'--the grizzled veterans of this board will correctly surmise that it's not a topic containing a Trotskyite critique of George W. Bush's farm policy. The same dynamic is at work with Philly Fan and his parroting of Fox News/Rush Limbaugh-esque buzzphrases.

Or:

A majority of people don't hyperventilate (not that I'm saying you are in this case, mind you) because a small portion of homo's use crystal or X. I'm going to assume that you are NOT classifying booze as part of the "drug use" and the hootch is a FAR worse problem than drugs are. "Gay culture is loaded with drug use"? I think that's hyperbole. I know a lot of gay men in Los Angeles--which is not Salt Lake City when it comes to attitudes about getting loaded--and most of them barely smoke pot, let alone do crystal or X. It's a problem concentrated on a small part of gay life. It's not the 70's anymore.

And frankly, I think drugs, if used properly are GREAT. Seriously. I loved taking acid and listening to my Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd records and if some clubkid wants to do X and dance his ass off all night, as long as he takes precautions, good for him. It's the single biggest reason why drug education fails: they try the whole Reefer Madness approach and kids know it's bullshit.

We had a potential Great Gay Leader once, Harvey Milk, but you all know how that ended up. I simply think that class, economic and racial issues trump sexuality so I don't ever see a unified gay movement ever emerging.

I'm sure some gay writer has done a well thought out, well-written piece about personal responsibility but I think Philly Fan picked a lame one to link to.

Another problem is where does the blame stop? If we are willing to believe Matthew Shephard is partly to blame, are we also saying Laci Peterson is to blame for what happened to her? Under the logic of some here, she knew her husband (assuming he's the one who killed her) better than most. She allowed him to father her child. Is she to blame for putting herself at risk by marrying him?

Is the Central Park jogger at fault? I lived very close to the park at the time of the incident and it just was so tiresome to here people say things like "What was she doing in the park at that hour?" or "What did she expect?". Jesus Christ, she should be able to be in the park. And rest f**king assured she wasn't expecting to be raped and beaten to within an inch of her life. The question should have been what were her attackers doing in the park!

And the reference the author makes to removing the rainbow flag at a biker bar, presumably out of fear. Well gays have been bashed and harrassed in their own "ghettos". Are we somehow responsible for sustaining beatings even if we are just walking around our neighborhoods? Or only if we dare stray into others?

This is only a problem if you throw common sense out the window. I think there's a slight difference between getting married and starting a family and going to a bar and getting picked up. And it is impossible - absolutely impossible - to fully and completely "know" somebody. None of us know what anybody else is capable of. So, no, I would say just because Laci P. didn't catch on that her husband (assuming...) was a potential killer does not mean she's even partly to blame for her death. The fact that these two situations are even being compared in any sort of serious manners suggests to me that this whole "debate" has just gotten too absurd to bother with.

In conclusion: 1) Matthew S. put himself at risk but still in no way - I want to be clear on this, in no way - (just so we're all on the same page here: in no way) deserved to die. That is to say, Matthew S. put himself at risk but did not deserve to die. Note the "not" between the words "did" and "deserve." That means I am saying Matthew S. did not deserve to die, even though he put himself at risk.

And then, what else? Don't put a hot cup of coffee in your lap if you're married to Scott Peterson and jogging through a park by yourself, because a gay leader who is not wearing a condom might sue you for millions of dollars because you groped him in the front seat of your HIV-postive Nissan Sentra in the parking lot of a biker bar in downtown San Francisco. Always remember that.

[ April 17, 2003, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

I'm a big fan of the hippie jam rock band Phish. At Phish shows, people do drugs. Lots of 'em. So the fear is that this legislation is going to be used to clamp down at rock shows as well. It's horrible legislation. Jaysus, get over yourself. We got your point the first time. No one I can read took you to task for your remarks, in fact as far as I can tell, everyone here agrees with the substance of your first remark. Jeebus, go outside and play with the other kids or do some drugs or something.

Your last paragraph was funny, though.

William, William William... It's very hard to talk about being responsible with bleeding heart liberals. To them, nothing is anyones fault, except corportations. Hell, they can even find reasons to defend illegal drug use. BUT only if done properly... Really what is the proper use of illegal drugs? Do they come with instructions?

The minute you say the the MS case could teach everyone a lesson about going home with strangers... you blame the victim.

And by the way.. if you run in the park.. ALONE, and AT NIGHT... yeah, you are a bit dumb. You dont deserve to be raped, but you are a bit dumb for setting yourself up like that.

I said Jim Allen responded I think Jim Allen's response... instead of refuting what I said, only proves what I said about gay society and its attitudes about drug use.

Guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "Hey! Don't stereotype us as drugusers! But man I love my drugs!"

There are actually a lot of people who "defend" illegal drug use, or rather, believe that certain drugs shouldn't be legal. There IS a difference between drug use and drug abuse, just as there is a different between alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse. The only difference between alcohol and, say, marijuana, is that marijuana was arbitrarily chosen by the government to be illegal. There are millions of people who use or have used drugs, and most of them turn out fine. The misguided and draconian drug war destroys far more lives than drugs ever did, IMO.

Just had to add that when I got up this morning, I certainly didn't think I'd be defending both the McDonald's coffee lawsuit and illegal drug use - in the same thread!

[ April 17, 2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: conor500 ]

MOST people also dont kill anyone when they drive home drunk, it doesnt make it correct.

That's a valid point. But drunk driving is something that is inherently dangerous and a threat to others. Responsible drug use need not be dangerous, and it is generally a threat only to yourself.

In addition, just because something is illegal does not necessarily make it wrong.

It's illegal for someone under 21 to drink, but do any of us really get that heated about a 20-year-old person having a beer?

And let's hope that no one here ever practices sodomy. That's illegal in a lot of places, too.

If my opinion is that i can SAFELY drive home when not too intoxicated, how is that any different than you saying that drugs (an illegal behavior) is anymore safe or sane?

William - While I certainly implied that Phillyfan needed to learn lessons of compassion towards those who make mistakes (and that we tend to attract what we most need to learn), I in no way wished HIV upon him. That you suggested so says is beyond offensive...an apology is in order. That was really low...

As usual, it's the conservatives who suggest that anyone who does anything off the straight and narrow path deserves whatever "punishment" they get. Every culture in history has experimented with mind altering drugs; Newsweek had a fascinating article about this a few years back. Our country decides what's legal by deciding where the money is...the morality part is mostly propaganda.

While I wouldn't get into a car with a stranger, I've certainly extended evenings before with guys that I've sat and had drinks with, like Matthew Shepard did...and I expect so has most everyone else here...I'm still repulsed by Phillyfan's original comments which he's tried to lessen and back out of, but the fact is - you sound like your homo self-hate is on high.

For the Republicans and most conservatives, most drugs are illegal and horrible and the cause of all our problems...But, valium, alcohol, and any number of other prescription drugs are just fine...cause they say so, and they're "legal," which we all know has solved all those nasty alcohol related problems out there..

So just because it's self inflicted harm, that makes it ok to sit back and let someone do it?

Isn't \"responsible drug use\" an oxymoron? aren't \"responsible\" and \"drug use\" mutually exclusive? How many guys do you know who says, \"I can quit any time I want.\" or \"I don't have a drug problem\" (as they vomit on the sidewalk outside the bar at 2:00am)

I don't think any of us here said (and William actually made a humorous refutation) that people \"deserve\" murder, rape etc. That's wrong.

And every culture practices anti-gay prejudice. That doesn't make that right. does it?

speaking only for myself... as a republican, I will say I am against drug use. But "No!" I do not indulge in valium, alcohol, nicotine and medically unauthorized prescriptions.

[ April 17, 2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

This sounds more like someone who smokes cigarettes - "I can quit any time I want" - or drinks alcohol - "I don't have a problem" (as they vomit on the sidewalk outside the bar at 2:00am) - than someone who uses drugs. Yet smoking and drinking are legal. (Here in NYC, of course, they're doing their damndest to make smoking illegal.)

As for "responsible drug use" being an oxymoron, I simply disagree. I have known many people who have used drugs every now and then (or even regularly) and have still managed to have great careers, families, etc. I would call that "responsible".

Ung: "We" let people drink, eat, smoke themselves to death all the time. "We" let people go bungee jumping and climb tall dangerous mountains all the time. "We" as you define it, don't get to decide what all the rest of us do all the time or what's right or wrong for us. That's called a free world. Your mentality "Just because it's self-inflicted harm doesn't mean that we should sit back and let them do it." How about I let you do what's right for you as long as it's not hurting others and vice versa? How about you keep that big brother-ish "We" at a minimum? How about I respect your right to be a teetotaler while I do what's right for me?

Bush and gang are the nightmarish "We" right now and they're basically wreaking havoc both domestically and internationally.

However I choose.

But just thinking about it has caused my heart to bleed, so I Googled for <"william f. Buckley" drug legalization> [cut and paste everything within the brackets] and found, among many examples, this:

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/writin...y_effects.shtml

and this:

http://cgi.cnn.com/US/9601/legalize_drugs/

and ... well, you read them. Then tell me why the government has the right to tell me what I can smoke, snort, ingest, shoot up, or insert. I mean, isn't that my personal responsibility?

[ April 17, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

see? that's what I'm talking about. You guys automatically assume that since I'm anti-drug use, I'm in favour of a gov't "big brother" crack down on drug use and personal liberty. Not so.

Being a drug user/abuser is ultimately a matter of personal decision. and therefore "personal responsibility" as the name of this thread implies. Illegal or not, each of us makes the personal decision to indulge in drugs or not.

It's unfortunate should you decide to do so. But that's your decision. I think that's what we're debating here. We're not debating who can raid your house for pot or not. I believe the debate (in this instance) was about whether drug use is safe or not. Many of you believe it is physically, medically ok to use Marijuana, acid, LSD< X, K, G etc. and trot out a bunch of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to support that idea. Well..... you're wrong. But I can't convince you of that. All I'll say is this. One of my better friends is the biggest drug dealers in the region. Does he use drugs? no. Enough said.

If you know me at all, you would know that I am the last person to support "Big Brother" my many demonstrations and marches attest to that.

Just because someone disagrees with you on drug use, don't demonize us into Orwellian villians.

I was arguing about scale. You make it sound like a large portion of gay men are doing drugs like they're in a 70's rock band. I don't think that's the case AT ALL and said so. So if it's not really a widespread problem like you claim, then what's the big deal? Really?

Full disclosure here: I'm a total pot/acid/psychedelics head who could drink like a fish, but I've been completely clean and sober for 18 years as of 5/11. I went to AA for a while but I detest the either/or mentality that The Program fosters. A lot of people there just. don't. get. it. that not everyone is an obsessive or uses chemicals to blot out the pain of life, that MOST (see: my younger brother) use them in appropriate situations to enhance experiences. I refuse to be one of those Program ass****s who, just because I couldn't handle it, wants everyone else to be denied as well.

Fine, Ung, you have qualms about drug use. Whatever. But oh the irony that in a thread about personal responsibility you don't seem willing to give people enough credit to make judgements about what's appropriate and what's not for themselves.
Again with the hyperbole. There's a vast difference between, say, a guy shooting $200 a day worth of heroin and Joe Sixpack who smokes a joint every few months at a concert; in a lot of anti-drug peoples minds (I'm not ascribing this attitude to you, I have no evidence to do so) there's no difference. In the junkies case, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING, is going to stop him unless he wants to. Period. JSP who smokes the joints doesn't have "a problem", so people should leave him the f**k alone. My parents tried for years to get me to rehab and it wasn't until I hit rock bottom that I sought help. It's why there's a program called Al-Anon for the people with the rescue fantasies, to disabuse them of that notion.

Have y'all seen the new anti-drug commercial that first aired during the Super Bowl? A straight couple gets a poz on a pregnancy test and then the camera pans to their daughter sitting on the toilet and a pompous, portentious voice comes on spewing some bullshit saying pot smoking leads to unwanted pregnancy. It's totally offensive because 1) it ignores the fact that the vastly larger portion are booze related but we'd never see that kind of ad because of how much money the booze industries pours in to lobbying and 2) sex is not, generally, a priority of people sitting around smoking pot. Eating 3 bags of Mrs. Fields cookies and watching something like Spongebob is though.

The "War on Drugs" is a total, complete, utter abysmal failure and overtly racist (ie sentencing laws for powder v. crack cocaine) so the sooner we see the backside of that doomed-to-fail attempt at social coercion, the better. And what a f**kin' black hole for tax money to boot.

Lawd. That sounded awfully Republican, that last sentence, didn't it? Sorry for the heated language contained herein, but it's a hot button topic for me, obviously.