<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_2040251</id>
	<title>US Government Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267275180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Deborah Blum has an article in Slate about the US government's mostly forgotten policy in the 1920s and 1930s of <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2245188">poisoning industrial alcohols manufactured in the US</a> to scare people into giving up illicit drinking during Prohibition. Known as the 'chemist's war of Prohibition,' the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, killed at least 10,000 people between 1926 and 1933. The story begins with ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919, which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition\_in\_the\_United\_States">banned sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the US</a>. By the mid-1920s, when the government saw that its 'noble experiment' was in danger of failing, it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol &mdash; itself a poison &mdash; didn't taste nasty enough. The government <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463299a.html">put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins</a> &mdash; adding such chemicals as kerosene, brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor to stop the poisoning program. But an official sense of higher purpose kept it in place, while lawmakers opposed to the plan were accused of being in cahoots with criminals and bootleggers. The chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, one of the poisoning program's most outspoken opponents, liked to call it 'our national experiment in extermination.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Deborah Blum has an article in Slate about the US government 's mostly forgotten policy in the 1920s and 1930s of poisoning industrial alcohols manufactured in the US to scare people into giving up illicit drinking during Prohibition .
Known as the 'chemist 's war of Prohibition, ' the federal poisoning program , by some estimates , killed at least 10,000 people between 1926 and 1933 .
The story begins with ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919 , which banned sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the US .
By the mid-1920s , when the government saw that its 'noble experiment ' was in danger of failing , it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl ( industrial ) alcohol    itself a poison    did n't taste nasty enough .
The government put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins    adding such chemicals as kerosene , brucine ( a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine ) , gasoline , benzene , cadmium , iodine , zinc , mercury salts , nicotine , ether , formaldehyde , chloroform , camphor , carbolic acid , quinine , and acetone .
In 1926 , in New York City , 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol ; 400 died .
The following year , deaths climbed to 700 .
These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor to stop the poisoning program .
But an official sense of higher purpose kept it in place , while lawmakers opposed to the plan were accused of being in cahoots with criminals and bootleggers .
The chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s , one of the poisoning program 's most outspoken opponents , liked to call it 'our national experiment in extermination .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Deborah Blum has an article in Slate about the US government's mostly forgotten policy in the 1920s and 1930s of poisoning industrial alcohols manufactured in the US to scare people into giving up illicit drinking during Prohibition.
Known as the 'chemist's war of Prohibition,' the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, killed at least 10,000 people between 1926 and 1933.
The story begins with ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919, which banned sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the US.
By the mid-1920s, when the government saw that its 'noble experiment' was in danger of failing, it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol — itself a poison — didn't taste nasty enough.
The government put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins — adding such chemicals as kerosene, brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone.
In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died.
The following year, deaths climbed to 700.
These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor to stop the poisoning program.
But an official sense of higher purpose kept it in place, while lawmakers opposed to the plan were accused of being in cahoots with criminals and bootleggers.
The chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, one of the poisoning program's most outspoken opponents, liked to call it 'our national experiment in extermination.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31318850</id>
	<title>You are wrong.</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1267469040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure some communists say the same thing about Russia and China, but they are wrong too.</p><p>Actions define words like volunteer, murderer, etc.  Status defines words like leader, stewardess, etc.  Beliefs define stuff people believe.</p><p>Christian believe simply that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, period.  All those people voting against torturing Spanish jews into conversion or voting against gay marriage did so out of beliefs affiliated with their belief in Jesus.  Pretty cut &amp; dry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure some communists say the same thing about Russia and China , but they are wrong too.Actions define words like volunteer , murderer , etc .
Status defines words like leader , stewardess , etc .
Beliefs define stuff people believe.Christian believe simply that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible , period .
All those people voting against torturing Spanish jews into conversion or voting against gay marriage did so out of beliefs affiliated with their belief in Jesus .
Pretty cut &amp; dry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure some communists say the same thing about Russia and China, but they are wrong too.Actions define words like volunteer, murderer, etc.
Status defines words like leader, stewardess, etc.
Beliefs define stuff people believe.Christian believe simply that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, period.
All those people voting against torturing Spanish jews into conversion or voting against gay marriage did so out of beliefs affiliated with their belief in Jesus.
Pretty cut &amp; dry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31311972</id>
	<title>poison a poison is wrong?</title>
	<author>johnny23498r57</author>
	<datestamp>1267378560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really understand the concept of bashing the government for poisoning a poison. Wood grain alcohol is already poisonous to humans. What's the big deal to make it more poisonous?

Survival of the fittest. If you're stupid enough to drink wood grain alcohol, you deserve to be poisoned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really understand the concept of bashing the government for poisoning a poison .
Wood grain alcohol is already poisonous to humans .
What 's the big deal to make it more poisonous ?
Survival of the fittest .
If you 're stupid enough to drink wood grain alcohol , you deserve to be poisoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really understand the concept of bashing the government for poisoning a poison.
Wood grain alcohol is already poisonous to humans.
What's the big deal to make it more poisonous?
Survival of the fittest.
If you're stupid enough to drink wood grain alcohol, you deserve to be poisoned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301534</id>
	<title>The gov't didn't INJECT them with syphilis...</title>
	<author>Ellis D. Tripp</author>
	<datestamp>1267282740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They studied men who already HAD the disease, and allowed it to progress untreated to see what would happen.</p><p>Still completely unethical, and one of the more atrocious chapters in US medical history. But claiming that the patients were intentionally infected with syphilis by gov't docs is simply wrong, and gives ammunition to those who would deny that the whole thing ever happened.</p><p>OTOH, the government did intentionally inject people (including mentally retarded children) with radioactive isotopes to see what the effects of nuclear fallout would be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They studied men who already HAD the disease , and allowed it to progress untreated to see what would happen.Still completely unethical , and one of the more atrocious chapters in US medical history .
But claiming that the patients were intentionally infected with syphilis by gov't docs is simply wrong , and gives ammunition to those who would deny that the whole thing ever happened.OTOH , the government did intentionally inject people ( including mentally retarded children ) with radioactive isotopes to see what the effects of nuclear fallout would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They studied men who already HAD the disease, and allowed it to progress untreated to see what would happen.Still completely unethical, and one of the more atrocious chapters in US medical history.
But claiming that the patients were intentionally infected with syphilis by gov't docs is simply wrong, and gives ammunition to those who would deny that the whole thing ever happened.OTOH, the government did intentionally inject people (including mentally retarded children) with radioactive isotopes to see what the effects of nuclear fallout would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301894</id>
	<title>Government looks after #1</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1267285920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in the 1920s the Government poisoned people for moral reasons.</p><p>Today they still poison methylated spirits (aka denatured spirits) to maximize their tax revenue.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured\_alcohol" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured\_alcohol</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in the 1920s the Government poisoned people for moral reasons.Today they still poison methylated spirits ( aka denatured spirits ) to maximize their tax revenue.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured \ _alcohol [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in the 1920s the Government poisoned people for moral reasons.Today they still poison methylated spirits (aka denatured spirits) to maximize their tax revenue.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured\_alcohol [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302602</id>
	<title>the only difference today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that our government is willing to take a more direct approach, like flying military aircraft into world trade centers and cruise missles into their own buildings to try and cover it up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that our government is willing to take a more direct approach , like flying military aircraft into world trade centers and cruise missles into their own buildings to try and cover it up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that our government is willing to take a more direct approach, like flying military aircraft into world trade centers and cruise missles into their own buildings to try and cover it up</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305584</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1267371720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Religionists are against booze, those disagreeing with religion are going to Hell, might as well give them an express ticket.</p><p>This is still going on today, where I had a debate over marijuana and how its prohibition violates the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  Then another guy joined-in and he said he lives in Colorado and needs marijuana for his dying wife.  It's the only thing that kills the pain, while still allowing her to feel "awake" rather than drugged.</p><p>The Christians spoke-up and basically said they don't care about the Tenth Amendment, or this poor guy's dying wife..... the U.S. should arrest both of them and the Colorado Government Legislators.  Religious people (not all but most) think it's okay to force us to follow their beliefs.  Like poisoning alcohol.</p><p><b>I also take this story as a perfect example of the Progressive Party in action -   </b> it was that party's idea of pass the alcohol prohibition in the late 1800s and into the 1900s.  And when it failed, they decided it was "for the greater good" to exterminate the citizens who refused to have their freedom taken away.</p><p>Even today members of the Progressive Party are espousing ideas to sterilize the population for the greater good of reducing the human population/helping the planet.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;That Prohibition and the poisoning campaign happened prove this post is no troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Religionists are against booze , those disagreeing with religion are going to Hell , might as well give them an express ticket.This is still going on today , where I had a debate over marijuana and how its prohibition violates the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights .
Then another guy joined-in and he said he lives in Colorado and needs marijuana for his dying wife .
It 's the only thing that kills the pain , while still allowing her to feel " awake " rather than drugged.The Christians spoke-up and basically said they do n't care about the Tenth Amendment , or this poor guy 's dying wife..... the U.S. should arrest both of them and the Colorado Government Legislators .
Religious people ( not all but most ) think it 's okay to force us to follow their beliefs .
Like poisoning alcohol.I also take this story as a perfect example of the Progressive Party in action - it was that party 's idea of pass the alcohol prohibition in the late 1800s and into the 1900s .
And when it failed , they decided it was " for the greater good " to exterminate the citizens who refused to have their freedom taken away.Even today members of the Progressive Party are espousing ideas to sterilize the population for the greater good of reducing the human population/helping the planet. &gt; &gt; &gt; That Prohibition and the poisoning campaign happened prove this post is no troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Religionists are against booze, those disagreeing with religion are going to Hell, might as well give them an express ticket.This is still going on today, where I had a debate over marijuana and how its prohibition violates the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Then another guy joined-in and he said he lives in Colorado and needs marijuana for his dying wife.
It's the only thing that kills the pain, while still allowing her to feel "awake" rather than drugged.The Christians spoke-up and basically said they don't care about the Tenth Amendment, or this poor guy's dying wife..... the U.S. should arrest both of them and the Colorado Government Legislators.
Religious people (not all but most) think it's okay to force us to follow their beliefs.
Like poisoning alcohol.I also take this story as a perfect example of the Progressive Party in action -    it was that party's idea of pass the alcohol prohibition in the late 1800s and into the 1900s.
And when it failed, they decided it was "for the greater good" to exterminate the citizens who refused to have their freedom taken away.Even today members of the Progressive Party are espousing ideas to sterilize the population for the greater good of reducing the human population/helping the planet.&gt;&gt;&gt;That Prohibition and the poisoning campaign happened prove this post is no troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307908</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a movie about this experiment... it's called Miss Evers' Boys... the experiment WAS real...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a movie about this experiment... it 's called Miss Evers ' Boys... the experiment WAS real.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a movie about this experiment... it's called Miss Evers' Boys... the experiment WAS real...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302306</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>Obyron</author>
	<datestamp>1267289580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or better yet, don't snort it, because the intranasal bioavailability of oxycodone is practically identical to the oral b/a.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or better yet , do n't snort it , because the intranasal bioavailability of oxycodone is practically identical to the oral b/a .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or better yet, don't snort it, because the intranasal bioavailability of oxycodone is practically identical to the oral b/a.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305644</id>
	<title>same old story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothing will change, this world is still sick.  2010 years of ignorance, another 10,000 years of pain.  You're all slaves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing will change , this world is still sick .
2010 years of ignorance , another 10,000 years of pain .
You 're all slaves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing will change, this world is still sick.
2010 years of ignorance, another 10,000 years of pain.
You're all slaves!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304268</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>fafalone</author>
	<datestamp>1267355340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're surprisingly uninformed for considering you know how to do the CWE. Every source on prescription numbers out there shows that combination opiates are several times more prescribed than pure products. This is because doctors fear people becoming addicted and fear the increased likelihood of a law enforcement investigation for prescribing strong narcotics. And damn straight it's to prevent abuse. Why else do you think hydrocodone combination products with 10mg or less hydrocodone are DEA Schedule III while everything else is Schedule II? Do you seriously think doctors PREFER to take the risk of prescribing a much more heavily regulated drug? And do you really think more than a couple percent of abusers would bother to perform an extraction? The undertreatment of pain is such a serious problem in this country precisely because of the abuse and regulatory liability of pure opiates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're surprisingly uninformed for considering you know how to do the CWE .
Every source on prescription numbers out there shows that combination opiates are several times more prescribed than pure products .
This is because doctors fear people becoming addicted and fear the increased likelihood of a law enforcement investigation for prescribing strong narcotics .
And damn straight it 's to prevent abuse .
Why else do you think hydrocodone combination products with 10mg or less hydrocodone are DEA Schedule III while everything else is Schedule II ?
Do you seriously think doctors PREFER to take the risk of prescribing a much more heavily regulated drug ?
And do you really think more than a couple percent of abusers would bother to perform an extraction ?
The undertreatment of pain is such a serious problem in this country precisely because of the abuse and regulatory liability of pure opiates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're surprisingly uninformed for considering you know how to do the CWE.
Every source on prescription numbers out there shows that combination opiates are several times more prescribed than pure products.
This is because doctors fear people becoming addicted and fear the increased likelihood of a law enforcement investigation for prescribing strong narcotics.
And damn straight it's to prevent abuse.
Why else do you think hydrocodone combination products with 10mg or less hydrocodone are DEA Schedule III while everything else is Schedule II?
Do you seriously think doctors PREFER to take the risk of prescribing a much more heavily regulated drug?
And do you really think more than a couple percent of abusers would bother to perform an extraction?
The undertreatment of pain is such a serious problem in this country precisely because of the abuse and regulatory liability of pure opiates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305630</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1267371960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or tried to spray Paraquat on pot fields in Mexico <b>knowing full well the pot would be smoked by Americans.</b></p> </div><p>Because poisoning Mexicans is just fine and dandy!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or tried to spray Paraquat on pot fields in Mexico knowing full well the pot would be smoked by Americans .
Because poisoning Mexicans is just fine and dandy !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or tried to spray Paraquat on pot fields in Mexico knowing full well the pot would be smoked by Americans.
Because poisoning Mexicans is just fine and dandy!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301484</id>
	<title>Interesting,I learned it the other way around</title>
	<author>exabrial</author>
	<datestamp>1267282380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, I learned it the other way around...<br> <br>
I learned that bootleggers were trying to put more 'kick' into their corn juice, so they added things like acetone, methyl, etc, and this was widespread because society barely understood certain chemicals were hazardous. In the same time period, smoking was considered healthy... <br> <br>Just saying, I'd take this article as a good propaganda piece until facts are double checked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I learned it the other way around.. . I learned that bootleggers were trying to put more 'kick ' into their corn juice , so they added things like acetone , methyl , etc , and this was widespread because society barely understood certain chemicals were hazardous .
In the same time period , smoking was considered healthy... Just saying , I 'd take this article as a good propaganda piece until facts are double checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I learned it the other way around... 
I learned that bootleggers were trying to put more 'kick' into their corn juice, so they added things like acetone, methyl, etc, and this was widespread because society barely understood certain chemicals were hazardous.
In the same time period, smoking was considered healthy...  Just saying, I'd take this article as a good propaganda piece until facts are double checked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301392</id>
	<title>Our Enemy the State</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our Enemy the State</p><p><a href="http://mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf" title="mises.org">pdf</a> [mises.org]<br><a href="http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&amp;ID=220" title="mises.org">audio</a> [mises.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our Enemy the Statepdf [ mises.org ] audio [ mises.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our Enemy the Statepdf [mises.org]audio [mises.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303854</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>MoeDumb</author>
	<datestamp>1267348440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Roman Catholic religion is not Bible based Christianity. So congratulations on throwing out the bathwater, but why throw out the baby with it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Roman Catholic religion is not Bible based Christianity .
So congratulations on throwing out the bathwater , but why throw out the baby with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Roman Catholic religion is not Bible based Christianity.
So congratulations on throwing out the bathwater, but why throw out the baby with it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302408</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>cas2000</author>
	<datestamp>1267290300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did your mummy tell you all that?</p><p>one day you'll grow up and understand that things aren't anything like that in the real, or grown-up, world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did your mummy tell you all that ? one day you 'll grow up and understand that things are n't anything like that in the real , or grown-up , world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did your mummy tell you all that?one day you'll grow up and understand that things aren't anything like that in the real, or grown-up, world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301470</id>
	<title>Makes you wonder</title>
	<author>hmmdar</author>
	<datestamp>1267282200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes you wonder if they are doing this with pot and other illicit drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes you wonder if they are doing this with pot and other illicit drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes you wonder if they are doing this with pot and other illicit drugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084</id>
	<title>Feds still going on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One might observe the very real actions of the FDA, approving EXPENSIVE dangerous new drugs, that should never have been released, and disparging other treatments that still work better (older generics, supplements). Some estimates are that several hundred thousand per year die because of such federally approved/mandated poisoning, millions more are injured.<br>
<br>Had a parent injured by several modern malpractices and pharmacides, turned out the way to survive was doing some older things that made simple biochemical sense.  Much, much better now and I have objective measures to demonstrate it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One might observe the very real actions of the FDA , approving EXPENSIVE dangerous new drugs , that should never have been released , and disparging other treatments that still work better ( older generics , supplements ) .
Some estimates are that several hundred thousand per year die because of such federally approved/mandated poisoning , millions more are injured .
Had a parent injured by several modern malpractices and pharmacides , turned out the way to survive was doing some older things that made simple biochemical sense .
Much , much better now and I have objective measures to demonstrate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One might observe the very real actions of the FDA, approving EXPENSIVE dangerous new drugs, that should never have been released, and disparging other treatments that still work better (older generics, supplements).
Some estimates are that several hundred thousand per year die because of such federally approved/mandated poisoning, millions more are injured.
Had a parent injured by several modern malpractices and pharmacides, turned out the way to survive was doing some older things that made simple biochemical sense.
Much, much better now and I have objective measures to demonstrate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</id>
	<title>while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1267283580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by government, religion, etc. please note one small detail:</p><p>there is no greater destruction of freedom in the history of mankind than drug addiction</p><p>you take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes from</p><p>so the most autocratic fascist fundamentalist brutal regime you can possible imagine is but a wall flower in comparison to the bars of the mind that represents the freedom destruction done by drugs</p><p>which makes two ironic points possible: government declares a war on drugs perhaps out of professional jealousy. and some people fight the government telling them what to do... so they can choose themselves to be slaves</p><p>either way, what i fear the most is the government that ACTIVELY PROMOTES the use of drugs, for example, heroin. when some evil mastermind figures out he doesn't have to fight drugs, but actually use them to supplicate and dominate, as a LITERAL opiate of the masses... at that point, mankind is genuinely screwed</p><p>actually drugs have already been used with this effect in warfare: the british forcing the chinese to take opium, the settlers of north america neutralizing the red man with "fire water", etc.</p><p>all i'm asking is that while y'all busy demonizing the freedom destruction of government and religion, that you don't forget the most successful freedom destroyer of them all: drugs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by government , religion , etc .
please note one small detail : there is no greater destruction of freedom in the history of mankind than drug addictionyou take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes fromso the most autocratic fascist fundamentalist brutal regime you can possible imagine is but a wall flower in comparison to the bars of the mind that represents the freedom destruction done by drugswhich makes two ironic points possible : government declares a war on drugs perhaps out of professional jealousy .
and some people fight the government telling them what to do... so they can choose themselves to be slaveseither way , what i fear the most is the government that ACTIVELY PROMOTES the use of drugs , for example , heroin .
when some evil mastermind figures out he does n't have to fight drugs , but actually use them to supplicate and dominate , as a LITERAL opiate of the masses... at that point , mankind is genuinely screwedactually drugs have already been used with this effect in warfare : the british forcing the chinese to take opium , the settlers of north america neutralizing the red man with " fire water " , etc.all i 'm asking is that while y'all busy demonizing the freedom destruction of government and religion , that you do n't forget the most successful freedom destroyer of them all : drugs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by government, religion, etc.
please note one small detail:there is no greater destruction of freedom in the history of mankind than drug addictionyou take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes fromso the most autocratic fascist fundamentalist brutal regime you can possible imagine is but a wall flower in comparison to the bars of the mind that represents the freedom destruction done by drugswhich makes two ironic points possible: government declares a war on drugs perhaps out of professional jealousy.
and some people fight the government telling them what to do... so they can choose themselves to be slaveseither way, what i fear the most is the government that ACTIVELY PROMOTES the use of drugs, for example, heroin.
when some evil mastermind figures out he doesn't have to fight drugs, but actually use them to supplicate and dominate, as a LITERAL opiate of the masses... at that point, mankind is genuinely screwedactually drugs have already been used with this effect in warfare: the british forcing the chinese to take opium, the settlers of north america neutralizing the red man with "fire water", etc.all i'm asking is that while y'all busy demonizing the freedom destruction of government and religion, that you don't forget the most successful freedom destroyer of them all: drugs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302630</id>
	<title>DRM for drinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't ultimately work in the long term either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't ultimately work in the long term either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't ultimately work in the long term either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301094</id>
	<title>That medical examiner's name?</title>
	<author>kaliann</author>
	<datestamp>1267279380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In TFA:  Charles Norris.<br>Because back in the day, he was just a medical examiner. He got the nickname "Chuck" from his ability to punch someone so hard they essentially became very similar to ground chuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In TFA : Charles Norris.Because back in the day , he was just a medical examiner .
He got the nickname " Chuck " from his ability to punch someone so hard they essentially became very similar to ground chuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In TFA:  Charles Norris.Because back in the day, he was just a medical examiner.
He got the nickname "Chuck" from his ability to punch someone so hard they essentially became very similar to ground chuck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301804</id>
	<title>Re:Denaturing Alcohol is standard practice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's purely about taxation. I'm into alternative fuels and believe it or not I can legally produce up to 20,000 gallons of alcohol a year without paying taxes so long as it's denatured. The ONLY reason for this is to render it undrinkable. I've got zero interest in drinking 190 proof fuel quality alcohol but it's funny the reason I have to poison it is because of taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's purely about taxation .
I 'm into alternative fuels and believe it or not I can legally produce up to 20,000 gallons of alcohol a year without paying taxes so long as it 's denatured .
The ONLY reason for this is to render it undrinkable .
I 've got zero interest in drinking 190 proof fuel quality alcohol but it 's funny the reason I have to poison it is because of taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's purely about taxation.
I'm into alternative fuels and believe it or not I can legally produce up to 20,000 gallons of alcohol a year without paying taxes so long as it's denatured.
The ONLY reason for this is to render it undrinkable.
I've got zero interest in drinking 190 proof fuel quality alcohol but it's funny the reason I have to poison it is because of taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301674</id>
	<title>Grow &amp; Cure Your Own Tobacco - Legally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267283760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's cheaper to grow and cure your own tobacco, and probably much more healthy than trusting what big business is loading your cigarettes with:</p><p><a href="http://www.coffinails.com/forums/" title="coffinails.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coffinails.com/forums/</a> [coffinails.com]</p><p>I am not a doctor, this is not medical advice, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. I am not a vulture, but I do like hemp seeds.</p><p>There's no reason to pay such heavy taxes on tobacco when you can legally grow your own - check your local laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's cheaper to grow and cure your own tobacco , and probably much more healthy than trusting what big business is loading your cigarettes with : http : //www.coffinails.com/forums/ [ coffinails.com ] I am not a doctor , this is not medical advice , I am not a lawyer , this is not legal advice .
I am not a vulture , but I do like hemp seeds.There 's no reason to pay such heavy taxes on tobacco when you can legally grow your own - check your local laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's cheaper to grow and cure your own tobacco, and probably much more healthy than trusting what big business is loading your cigarettes with:http://www.coffinails.com/forums/ [coffinails.com]I am not a doctor, this is not medical advice, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
I am not a vulture, but I do like hemp seeds.There's no reason to pay such heavy taxes on tobacco when you can legally grow your own - check your local laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304306</id>
	<title>"Mostly forgotten policy"?</title>
	<author>dtmos</author>
	<datestamp>1267356360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We discussed the chemists' war on Prohibition in high school history, and I always assumed it was common knowledge.  Admittedly, that was back when dirt was new, but geez -- is this really news to people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We discussed the chemists ' war on Prohibition in high school history , and I always assumed it was common knowledge .
Admittedly , that was back when dirt was new , but geez -- is this really news to people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We discussed the chemists' war on Prohibition in high school history, and I always assumed it was common knowledge.
Admittedly, that was back when dirt was new, but geez -- is this really news to people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303736</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What kind of sick view of the world warps a person to the point where they believe that having someone brush their teeth with the old meat whistle is actually a <i>bad thing</i>?</p><p>Seriously.</p><p>I think I was a freshman in high school when one of the Jesuits at the catholic high school I attended said that oral sex was sinful because it was a sexual act that did not give glory to the Lord as a reproductive act.  That was when I realized there could not be a god that would give us peckers and mouths and then say "Oh, by the way...<i>use them and you will burn for eternity!</i>?.  It just defied any sort of logic IMO.</p><p>That was about the end of organized religion for me.  Although I did once go to a Catholic Youth Organization function once more because I thought I might be able to get Patti O'Connor to give me a wobble job if I was really nice to her and appeared to be a devout person.  It didn't work, so I never again darkened the door of a religious institution.</p></div><p>There are just so many disturbing parts of your past that it's hard to look directly at my monitor. I will say this, though: for every sexual act you find perfectly reasonable, there are always people who will take issue with it, and vice versa. For example, I'm guessing you're not a big fan of consensual sex with children, but there will always be people who will consider you a prude for being so unenlightened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of sick view of the world warps a person to the point where they believe that having someone brush their teeth with the old meat whistle is actually a bad thing ? Seriously.I think I was a freshman in high school when one of the Jesuits at the catholic high school I attended said that oral sex was sinful because it was a sexual act that did not give glory to the Lord as a reproductive act .
That was when I realized there could not be a god that would give us peckers and mouths and then say " Oh , by the way...use them and you will burn for eternity ! ? .
It just defied any sort of logic IMO.That was about the end of organized religion for me .
Although I did once go to a Catholic Youth Organization function once more because I thought I might be able to get Patti O'Connor to give me a wobble job if I was really nice to her and appeared to be a devout person .
It did n't work , so I never again darkened the door of a religious institution.There are just so many disturbing parts of your past that it 's hard to look directly at my monitor .
I will say this , though : for every sexual act you find perfectly reasonable , there are always people who will take issue with it , and vice versa .
For example , I 'm guessing you 're not a big fan of consensual sex with children , but there will always be people who will consider you a prude for being so unenlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of sick view of the world warps a person to the point where they believe that having someone brush their teeth with the old meat whistle is actually a bad thing?Seriously.I think I was a freshman in high school when one of the Jesuits at the catholic high school I attended said that oral sex was sinful because it was a sexual act that did not give glory to the Lord as a reproductive act.
That was when I realized there could not be a god that would give us peckers and mouths and then say "Oh, by the way...use them and you will burn for eternity!?.
It just defied any sort of logic IMO.That was about the end of organized religion for me.
Although I did once go to a Catholic Youth Organization function once more because I thought I might be able to get Patti O'Connor to give me a wobble job if I was really nice to her and appeared to be a devout person.
It didn't work, so I never again darkened the door of a religious institution.There are just so many disturbing parts of your past that it's hard to look directly at my monitor.
I will say this, though: for every sexual act you find perfectly reasonable, there are always people who will take issue with it, and vice versa.
For example, I'm guessing you're not a big fan of consensual sex with children, but there will always be people who will consider you a prude for being so unenlightened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301194</id>
	<title>Still goes on. Ever heard of Denatured Alcohol?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BATF has a list of approved formulas which must be used to render ethanol undrinkable in order to avoid federal excise taxes. The list is available here:</p><p><a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/27cfr21\_03.html" title="gpo.gov">http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/27cfr21\_03.html</a> [gpo.gov]</p><p>The denaturants used range from simply nasty-tasting, to nausea-inducing, to downright lethal.</p><p>Apparently, Uncle Sam would rather you be dead or blind than getting driunk without paying the booze taxes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BATF has a list of approved formulas which must be used to render ethanol undrinkable in order to avoid federal excise taxes .
The list is available here : http : //www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx \ _03/27cfr21 \ _03.html [ gpo.gov ] The denaturants used range from simply nasty-tasting , to nausea-inducing , to downright lethal.Apparently , Uncle Sam would rather you be dead or blind than getting driunk without paying the booze taxes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BATF has a list of approved formulas which must be used to render ethanol undrinkable in order to avoid federal excise taxes.
The list is available here:http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx\_03/27cfr21\_03.html [gpo.gov]The denaturants used range from simply nasty-tasting, to nausea-inducing, to downright lethal.Apparently, Uncle Sam would rather you be dead or blind than getting driunk without paying the booze taxes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307070</id>
	<title>Re:not that different today</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1267381800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer the term "decriminalize" to "legalize" in this context.  "Legalize" seems to suggest that something is naturally or inherently illegal, and that some special, unnatural action is being suggested to make it legal.  This also ties to the sense many people seem to have that if the government "legalizes" something it is also legitimizing it.</p><p>I think that "decriminalize" cuts to the heart of the matter.  Today, selling, or buying, or consuming, (or possessing!) some particular thing might be a crime.  We have but to stop making that victimless behavior a crime.</p><p>You seem to have given this topic a great deal of thought.  Is there a reason you prefer "legalize"?</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer the term " decriminalize " to " legalize " in this context .
" Legalize " seems to suggest that something is naturally or inherently illegal , and that some special , unnatural action is being suggested to make it legal .
This also ties to the sense many people seem to have that if the government " legalizes " something it is also legitimizing it.I think that " decriminalize " cuts to the heart of the matter .
Today , selling , or buying , or consuming , ( or possessing !
) some particular thing might be a crime .
We have but to stop making that victimless behavior a crime.You seem to have given this topic a great deal of thought .
Is there a reason you prefer " legalize " ? -Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer the term "decriminalize" to "legalize" in this context.
"Legalize" seems to suggest that something is naturally or inherently illegal, and that some special, unnatural action is being suggested to make it legal.
This also ties to the sense many people seem to have that if the government "legalizes" something it is also legitimizing it.I think that "decriminalize" cuts to the heart of the matter.
Today, selling, or buying, or consuming, (or possessing!
) some particular thing might be a crime.
We have but to stop making that victimless behavior a crime.You seem to have given this topic a great deal of thought.
Is there a reason you prefer "legalize"?-Peter</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110</id>
	<title>Denaturing Alcohol is standard practice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Denaturing alcohol is a common practice even today to prevent tax dodging, perhaps the best mass-scale denaturing occurring today is in Ethanol plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Denaturing alcohol is a common practice even today to prevent tax dodging , perhaps the best mass-scale denaturing occurring today is in Ethanol plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denaturing alcohol is a common practice even today to prevent tax dodging, perhaps the best mass-scale denaturing occurring today is in Ethanol plants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303200</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>KagakuNinja</author>
	<datestamp>1267297380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The acetaminophen is not to poison a hard abuser; in fact, most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.</p></div><p>Tell that to Rush Limbaugh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The acetaminophen is not to poison a hard abuser ; in fact , most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.Tell that to Rush Limbaugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The acetaminophen is not to poison a hard abuser; in fact, most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.Tell that to Rush Limbaugh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31311134</id>
	<title>Re:Still happening</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1267369620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this wiki article inaccurate?<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat#.22Paraquat\_pot.22</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this wiki article inaccurate ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat # .22Paraquat \ _pot.22</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this wiki article inaccurate?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat#.22Paraquat\_pot.22</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302492</id>
	<title>poison the government and someone goes to jail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't even the tip of the iceberg of all the crap the government has done to us and they never face the music. The government is not for the people, they're for themselves and all their large corporate and banking bed fellows. And the moment we the people try to change that we will be labled terrorists and stripped of what little rights we have left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't even the tip of the iceberg of all the crap the government has done to us and they never face the music .
The government is not for the people , they 're for themselves and all their large corporate and banking bed fellows .
And the moment we the people try to change that we will be labled terrorists and stripped of what little rights we have left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't even the tip of the iceberg of all the crap the government has done to us and they never face the music.
The government is not for the people, they're for themselves and all their large corporate and banking bed fellows.
And the moment we the people try to change that we will be labled terrorists and stripped of what little rights we have left.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31306704</id>
	<title>Re:Feds still going on</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1267379400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the drug companies are pretty happy with the current system.  If they could change anything, they'd stop the Indian companies from making affordable generics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the drug companies are pretty happy with the current system .
If they could change anything , they 'd stop the Indian companies from making affordable generics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the drug companies are pretty happy with the current system.
If they could change anything, they'd stop the Indian companies from making affordable generics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301350</id>
	<title>not that different today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The situation today is not that different. For example, deaths in the US and Mexico arising from heroin generally fall into two classes: (1) deaths because importing and selling heroin often involves violent criminal gangs, and (2) deaths because illegal heroin is impure. Both categories of deaths are purely government-inflicted, in the sense that the US government could end them tomorrow if it chose to legalize heroin.</p><p> Category #1 is pretty obvious: no more drug-related shootings if the stuff is being grown, imported, refined, packaged, and sold legally.
</p><p>
Category #2 is less well known to most people. When opiates were legal, people would generally just smoke opium. It had some bad health effects (e.g., constipation), but nothing all that deadly. People weren't overdosing from it. If you smoked too much, you fell asleep. Opium was legal in the US until around the turn of the 20th century. During most of the 20th century in the US, people were using extremely impure heroin. The impurities had two effects. One was that if it was maybe 10\% heroin and 90\% other ingredients, you couldn't get high from smoking or snorting it, so you had to inject it. AIDS transmission through shared needles wouldn't exist if heroin wasn't so impure that it had to be injected. The other was that the impurities themselves (often really nasty, random stuff like Ajax cleanser) could have devastating health effects. When you see a heroin addict who's lost all his teeth, it's because of the impurities, not the drug itself.
</p><p>
More recently, people have started to use black tar heroin imported from Mexico. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-me-blacktar14-2010feb14,0,674979.story" title="latimes.com">Here</a> [latimes.com] is a series of articles about black tar heroin from the LA Times. This stuff is much cheaper than traditional heroin, so you don't get as many property crimes because druggies are stealing to support their habits. However, the black crud tends to cause collapsed veins and other problems. Also, a lot of people are overdosing because the black tar is stronger than they're used to. If heroin were legal, people would be able to look at the packaging and get accurate information about its strength.
</p><p>
Let's legalize heroin in the US tomorrow. Mexico could pull back from being on the verge of becoming a failed state. People in the US would stop dying. Violent and nonviolent crime would be reduced. The prison population would be greatly reduced. The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, due almost entirely to the failed war on drugs. Keeping all those people in jail is extremely expensive. E.g., California spends more on prisons than on higher education.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The situation today is not that different .
For example , deaths in the US and Mexico arising from heroin generally fall into two classes : ( 1 ) deaths because importing and selling heroin often involves violent criminal gangs , and ( 2 ) deaths because illegal heroin is impure .
Both categories of deaths are purely government-inflicted , in the sense that the US government could end them tomorrow if it chose to legalize heroin .
Category # 1 is pretty obvious : no more drug-related shootings if the stuff is being grown , imported , refined , packaged , and sold legally .
Category # 2 is less well known to most people .
When opiates were legal , people would generally just smoke opium .
It had some bad health effects ( e.g. , constipation ) , but nothing all that deadly .
People were n't overdosing from it .
If you smoked too much , you fell asleep .
Opium was legal in the US until around the turn of the 20th century .
During most of the 20th century in the US , people were using extremely impure heroin .
The impurities had two effects .
One was that if it was maybe 10 \ % heroin and 90 \ % other ingredients , you could n't get high from smoking or snorting it , so you had to inject it .
AIDS transmission through shared needles would n't exist if heroin was n't so impure that it had to be injected .
The other was that the impurities themselves ( often really nasty , random stuff like Ajax cleanser ) could have devastating health effects .
When you see a heroin addict who 's lost all his teeth , it 's because of the impurities , not the drug itself .
More recently , people have started to use black tar heroin imported from Mexico .
Here [ latimes.com ] is a series of articles about black tar heroin from the LA Times .
This stuff is much cheaper than traditional heroin , so you do n't get as many property crimes because druggies are stealing to support their habits .
However , the black crud tends to cause collapsed veins and other problems .
Also , a lot of people are overdosing because the black tar is stronger than they 're used to .
If heroin were legal , people would be able to look at the packaging and get accurate information about its strength .
Let 's legalize heroin in the US tomorrow .
Mexico could pull back from being on the verge of becoming a failed state .
People in the US would stop dying .
Violent and nonviolent crime would be reduced .
The prison population would be greatly reduced .
The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world , due almost entirely to the failed war on drugs .
Keeping all those people in jail is extremely expensive .
E.g. , California spends more on prisons than on higher education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The situation today is not that different.
For example, deaths in the US and Mexico arising from heroin generally fall into two classes: (1) deaths because importing and selling heroin often involves violent criminal gangs, and (2) deaths because illegal heroin is impure.
Both categories of deaths are purely government-inflicted, in the sense that the US government could end them tomorrow if it chose to legalize heroin.
Category #1 is pretty obvious: no more drug-related shootings if the stuff is being grown, imported, refined, packaged, and sold legally.
Category #2 is less well known to most people.
When opiates were legal, people would generally just smoke opium.
It had some bad health effects (e.g., constipation), but nothing all that deadly.
People weren't overdosing from it.
If you smoked too much, you fell asleep.
Opium was legal in the US until around the turn of the 20th century.
During most of the 20th century in the US, people were using extremely impure heroin.
The impurities had two effects.
One was that if it was maybe 10\% heroin and 90\% other ingredients, you couldn't get high from smoking or snorting it, so you had to inject it.
AIDS transmission through shared needles wouldn't exist if heroin wasn't so impure that it had to be injected.
The other was that the impurities themselves (often really nasty, random stuff like Ajax cleanser) could have devastating health effects.
When you see a heroin addict who's lost all his teeth, it's because of the impurities, not the drug itself.
More recently, people have started to use black tar heroin imported from Mexico.
Here [latimes.com] is a series of articles about black tar heroin from the LA Times.
This stuff is much cheaper than traditional heroin, so you don't get as many property crimes because druggies are stealing to support their habits.
However, the black crud tends to cause collapsed veins and other problems.
Also, a lot of people are overdosing because the black tar is stronger than they're used to.
If heroin were legal, people would be able to look at the packaging and get accurate information about its strength.
Let's legalize heroin in the US tomorrow.
Mexico could pull back from being on the verge of becoming a failed state.
People in the US would stop dying.
Violent and nonviolent crime would be reduced.
The prison population would be greatly reduced.
The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, due almost entirely to the failed war on drugs.
Keeping all those people in jail is extremely expensive.
E.g., California spends more on prisons than on higher education.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302660</id>
	<title>The right thing</title>
	<author>mojesionsyy</author>
	<datestamp>1267292460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have done the right thing as alcohol is very injurious to health.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/where-to-buy-ultimate-acai-max-risk-free-trial-1906131.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/where-to-buy-ultimate-acai-max-risk-free-trial-1906131.html</a> [articlesbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have done the right thing as alcohol is very injurious to health .
http : //www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/where-to-buy-ultimate-acai-max-risk-free-trial-1906131.html [ articlesbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have done the right thing as alcohol is very injurious to health.
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/where-to-buy-ultimate-acai-max-risk-free-trial-1906131.html [articlesbase.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301444</id>
	<title>I approve of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been touting this idea for years: when drugs are seized, they should be poisoned and sold back on the streets and the money put back into the War on Drugs.  And don't make a secret of it either: hold a press conference, with the chief of police saying "We seized a ton of pot last night.  It's now in circulation with a shitload of toxin in it.  Good luck, suckers!"
<br> <br>I mean, it's a fucking WAR on Drugs, right?  The news channels need a body count.  Then, after a few senators' daughters drop dead, maybe we can reconsider the rationale for it all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been touting this idea for years : when drugs are seized , they should be poisoned and sold back on the streets and the money put back into the War on Drugs .
And do n't make a secret of it either : hold a press conference , with the chief of police saying " We seized a ton of pot last night .
It 's now in circulation with a shitload of toxin in it .
Good luck , suckers !
" I mean , it 's a fucking WAR on Drugs , right ?
The news channels need a body count .
Then , after a few senators ' daughters drop dead , maybe we can reconsider the rationale for it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been touting this idea for years: when drugs are seized, they should be poisoned and sold back on the streets and the money put back into the War on Drugs.
And don't make a secret of it either: hold a press conference, with the chief of police saying "We seized a ton of pot last night.
It's now in circulation with a shitload of toxin in it.
Good luck, suckers!
"
 I mean, it's a fucking WAR on Drugs, right?
The news channels need a body count.
Then, after a few senators' daughters drop dead, maybe we can reconsider the rationale for it all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301638</id>
	<title>gov trying to require testing for all medical mari</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267283580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when the government demands that all medical marijuana be tested for toxins</p><p>they will just be adding the toxins</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when the government demands that all medical marijuana be tested for toxinsthey will just be adding the toxins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when the government demands that all medical marijuana be tested for toxinsthey will just be adding the toxins</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301158</id>
	<title>Kinda like they poison opiates with apap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The liver damage caused by the acetaminophen supposedly keeps a lid on abuse of all those oxy/hydro/codeine combos that take away the give a shit from all the hurt. Lets hope the new regs keep out the bad without killing off any chances for those needing pain management. But I don't expect good policies in the drug area or much else these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The liver damage caused by the acetaminophen supposedly keeps a lid on abuse of all those oxy/hydro/codeine combos that take away the give a shit from all the hurt .
Lets hope the new regs keep out the bad without killing off any chances for those needing pain management .
But I do n't expect good policies in the drug area or much else these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The liver damage caused by the acetaminophen supposedly keeps a lid on abuse of all those oxy/hydro/codeine combos that take away the give a shit from all the hurt.
Lets hope the new regs keep out the bad without killing off any chances for those needing pain management.
But I don't expect good policies in the drug area or much else these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303588</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267388160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The acetaminophen is added for extra pain relief - and it does help.</p></div><p>Helps to kill abusers, that is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>in fact, most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.</p></div><p>Yes, most would prefer not to kill their patients, even if those patients abuse drugs. The gov't, on the other hand, has different ideas and they're the ones pushing the APAP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The acetaminophen is added for extra pain relief - and it does help.Helps to kill abusers , that is.in fact , most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.Yes , most would prefer not to kill their patients , even if those patients abuse drugs .
The gov't , on the other hand , has different ideas and they 're the ones pushing the APAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The acetaminophen is added for extra pain relief - and it does help.Helps to kill abusers, that is.in fact, most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.Yes, most would prefer not to kill their patients, even if those patients abuse drugs.
The gov't, on the other hand, has different ideas and they're the ones pushing the APAP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301384</id>
	<title>It shouldn't be to suprising to us</title>
	<author>mikesd81</author>
	<datestamp>1267281420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_radiation\_experiments" title="wikipedia.org">Considering some other things the gov't has done to the people</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering some other things the gov't has done to the people [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering some other things the gov't has done to the people [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301756</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not understand the desire to dress up outrages to enhance their shock value. There is no need for the unsubstantiated FUD of "Doctors paid by Washington injected syphilis into unsuspecting indigent Americans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." The infections were naturally acquired. But they were kept untreated for decades, and allowed to progress and be spread to the wives and children of the men. The men were deceived as to the purpose of the study and the procedures they underwent, kept in ignorance of their infection and its progression, and actively obstructed if they tried to access treatment elsewhere. The facts are damning enough.</p><p>There was a special on it on PBS Nova, which is well worth watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not understand the desire to dress up outrages to enhance their shock value .
There is no need for the unsubstantiated FUD of " Doctors paid by Washington injected syphilis into unsuspecting indigent Americans ... " The infections were naturally acquired .
But they were kept untreated for decades , and allowed to progress and be spread to the wives and children of the men .
The men were deceived as to the purpose of the study and the procedures they underwent , kept in ignorance of their infection and its progression , and actively obstructed if they tried to access treatment elsewhere .
The facts are damning enough.There was a special on it on PBS Nova , which is well worth watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not understand the desire to dress up outrages to enhance their shock value.
There is no need for the unsubstantiated FUD of "Doctors paid by Washington injected syphilis into unsuspecting indigent Americans ..." The infections were naturally acquired.
But they were kept untreated for decades, and allowed to progress and be spread to the wives and children of the men.
The men were deceived as to the purpose of the study and the procedures they underwent, kept in ignorance of their infection and its progression, and actively obstructed if they tried to access treatment elsewhere.
The facts are damning enough.There was a special on it on PBS Nova, which is well worth watching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301530</id>
	<title>Wide-spread practice in the Soviet Union</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267282740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some hydraulic equipment in the Soviet Union, especially on aircraft, had to operate on ethanol or other alcohol variants in order to avoid freezing at very low temperatures.  Not surprisingly, there was often a shortage of it because airmen drank it out of the hydraulic fluid reservoirs.  One solution was to, indeed, mix in toxic substances into "technical" alcohol to prevent its unintended uses.  Polar airmen discovered a trick for purifying such "technical" alcohol from its toxic additives: let the mixture flow over a highly cooled (e.g. using outside air, to -30 or -40C) long metal rod.  The alcohol would run freely and drip off the end, whereas most toxic additives would freeze onto the rod itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some hydraulic equipment in the Soviet Union , especially on aircraft , had to operate on ethanol or other alcohol variants in order to avoid freezing at very low temperatures .
Not surprisingly , there was often a shortage of it because airmen drank it out of the hydraulic fluid reservoirs .
One solution was to , indeed , mix in toxic substances into " technical " alcohol to prevent its unintended uses .
Polar airmen discovered a trick for purifying such " technical " alcohol from its toxic additives : let the mixture flow over a highly cooled ( e.g .
using outside air , to -30 or -40C ) long metal rod .
The alcohol would run freely and drip off the end , whereas most toxic additives would freeze onto the rod itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some hydraulic equipment in the Soviet Union, especially on aircraft, had to operate on ethanol or other alcohol variants in order to avoid freezing at very low temperatures.
Not surprisingly, there was often a shortage of it because airmen drank it out of the hydraulic fluid reservoirs.
One solution was to, indeed, mix in toxic substances into "technical" alcohol to prevent its unintended uses.
Polar airmen discovered a trick for purifying such "technical" alcohol from its toxic additives: let the mixture flow over a highly cooled (e.g.
using outside air, to -30 or -40C) long metal rod.
The alcohol would run freely and drip off the end, whereas most toxic additives would freeze onto the rod itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301464</id>
	<title>Prohibition is STILL doing more harm than good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267282140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With cannabis prohibition, weed gets adulterated with tiny glass beads, sugar, other drugs, even gravy mix. People turn to JWH and similar untested research chems because the same high from a plant humans have used for millenia is illegal. Cannabis prohibition means people choose between Alcohol or Nicotine mainly, both of which can kill you.</p><p>And the Drug Czar says, "The science isn't in yet, I am against legalizing anything."</p><p>Nevermind the fact that his job description by law says he must oppose legalization, this guy apparently doesn't even understand the concept of a drug's therapeutic index (ratio of an effective dose : a lethal dose).</p><p>So a lot of us keep going to gangs and criminals and giving them inordinate amounts of money for a damn flower. Kids from the suburbs are zero degrees of separation away from gangs. Dealers don't card. And they don't all only sell weed. Just sayin'.</p><p>It's fckn' TWENTY TEN, GUYS. How far have we really come?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With cannabis prohibition , weed gets adulterated with tiny glass beads , sugar , other drugs , even gravy mix .
People turn to JWH and similar untested research chems because the same high from a plant humans have used for millenia is illegal .
Cannabis prohibition means people choose between Alcohol or Nicotine mainly , both of which can kill you.And the Drug Czar says , " The science is n't in yet , I am against legalizing anything .
" Nevermind the fact that his job description by law says he must oppose legalization , this guy apparently does n't even understand the concept of a drug 's therapeutic index ( ratio of an effective dose : a lethal dose ) .So a lot of us keep going to gangs and criminals and giving them inordinate amounts of money for a damn flower .
Kids from the suburbs are zero degrees of separation away from gangs .
Dealers do n't card .
And they do n't all only sell weed .
Just sayin'.It 's fckn ' TWENTY TEN , GUYS .
How far have we really come ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With cannabis prohibition, weed gets adulterated with tiny glass beads, sugar, other drugs, even gravy mix.
People turn to JWH and similar untested research chems because the same high from a plant humans have used for millenia is illegal.
Cannabis prohibition means people choose between Alcohol or Nicotine mainly, both of which can kill you.And the Drug Czar says, "The science isn't in yet, I am against legalizing anything.
"Nevermind the fact that his job description by law says he must oppose legalization, this guy apparently doesn't even understand the concept of a drug's therapeutic index (ratio of an effective dose : a lethal dose).So a lot of us keep going to gangs and criminals and giving them inordinate amounts of money for a damn flower.
Kids from the suburbs are zero degrees of separation away from gangs.
Dealers don't card.
And they don't all only sell weed.
Just sayin'.It's fckn' TWENTY TEN, GUYS.
How far have we really come?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302442</id>
	<title>only 10\% methanol is approved formula now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267290540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can add other nasties, but 10\% methanol is now mandatory, before it used to be 1\% methanol mandatory, but now its 10\% (more lethal)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can add other nasties , but 10 \ % methanol is now mandatory , before it used to be 1 \ % methanol mandatory , but now its 10 \ % ( more lethal )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can add other nasties, but 10\% methanol is now mandatory, before it used to be 1\% methanol mandatory, but now its 10\% (more lethal)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301226</id>
	<title>Re:Feds still going on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you blaming them in hindsight? It may be true that 95\% of proposed drugs do more harm than good, but you have to try them out to find the 5\% that work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you blaming them in hindsight ?
It may be true that 95 \ % of proposed drugs do more harm than good , but you have to try them out to find the 5 \ % that work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you blaming them in hindsight?
It may be true that 95\% of proposed drugs do more harm than good, but you have to try them out to find the 5\% that work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302546</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>trout007</author>
	<datestamp>1267291380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the problem with your analysis. If I choose not to do drugs my life is still harmed by the war on drugs. It is the war that causes something that should be next to free to cost more than gold. That amount of profit goes to fund armed gangs, corrupt police, fill jails, and plenty of other things that directly affect me. In a free society the person who takes the risks should suffer the consequences of their actions not punish everyone because a few people can't control themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the problem with your analysis .
If I choose not to do drugs my life is still harmed by the war on drugs .
It is the war that causes something that should be next to free to cost more than gold .
That amount of profit goes to fund armed gangs , corrupt police , fill jails , and plenty of other things that directly affect me .
In a free society the person who takes the risks should suffer the consequences of their actions not punish everyone because a few people ca n't control themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the problem with your analysis.
If I choose not to do drugs my life is still harmed by the war on drugs.
It is the war that causes something that should be next to free to cost more than gold.
That amount of profit goes to fund armed gangs, corrupt police, fill jails, and plenty of other things that directly affect me.
In a free society the person who takes the risks should suffer the consequences of their actions not punish everyone because a few people can't control themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31322786</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>AzuMao</author>
	<datestamp>1267440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?</p></div><p>Following that logic, Al-Qaeda aren't Islamic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it 's basic tenants , willfully ignore it , or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy ? Following that logic , Al-Qaeda are n't Islamic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?Following that logic, Al-Qaeda aren't Islamic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307138</id>
	<title>Re:Acetominophen and Opiates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tylenol IV (acetaminophen and codiene) is available over the counter in Canada. Since codiene is an opiate, this means the great Canadian heath care system is also poisoning it citizens!</p><p>Drugs are never produced to treat disease. They exist to either make money or poison the infidels!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tylenol IV ( acetaminophen and codiene ) is available over the counter in Canada .
Since codiene is an opiate , this means the great Canadian heath care system is also poisoning it citizens ! Drugs are never produced to treat disease .
They exist to either make money or poison the infidels !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tylenol IV (acetaminophen and codiene) is available over the counter in Canada.
Since codiene is an opiate, this means the great Canadian heath care system is also poisoning it citizens!Drugs are never produced to treat disease.
They exist to either make money or poison the infidels!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304826</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, they didn't \_inject\_ them with syphilis. But they did withhold a known treatment from men who already had syphilis. (as described in the very article you linked to.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , they did n't \ _inject \ _ them with syphilis .
But they did withhold a known treatment from men who already had syphilis .
( as described in the very article you linked to .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, they didn't \_inject\_ them with syphilis.
But they did withhold a known treatment from men who already had syphilis.
(as described in the very article you linked to.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301578</id>
	<title>cool story bro</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1267283040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this has what to do with my rights online, again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this has what to do with my rights online , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this has what to do with my rights online, again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303436</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1267300200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"you take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes from"</p><p>I hate to tell you this but many people already have this short-sighted view. Those inflicted are called corporate executives, stock holders, and congressman. It's the driving force of short-term capitalism, that we're trying to recover from as americans. I'm not holding my breath for a any recovery of common sense though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" you take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes from " I hate to tell you this but many people already have this short-sighted view .
Those inflicted are called corporate executives , stock holders , and congressman .
It 's the driving force of short-term capitalism , that we 're trying to recover from as americans .
I 'm not holding my breath for a any recovery of common sense though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"you take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes from"I hate to tell you this but many people already have this short-sighted view.
Those inflicted are called corporate executives, stock holders, and congressman.
It's the driving force of short-term capitalism, that we're trying to recover from as americans.
I'm not holding my breath for a any recovery of common sense though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301708</id>
	<title>Acetaminophen isn't poison, it's Tylenol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of medicines are poisonous at high doses.  That's why you're supposed to listen to your doctor.</p><p>And how come no one is complaining about the bootleggers who were using denatured alcohol without properly distilling it?  But for their actions, nobody would've been poisoned by this.</p><p>Worse, drug dealers still do that today, too, just to make a buck, when they cut their drugs with other poisonous substances and the government sure isn't forcing that upon them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of medicines are poisonous at high doses .
That 's why you 're supposed to listen to your doctor.And how come no one is complaining about the bootleggers who were using denatured alcohol without properly distilling it ?
But for their actions , nobody would 've been poisoned by this.Worse , drug dealers still do that today , too , just to make a buck , when they cut their drugs with other poisonous substances and the government sure is n't forcing that upon them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of medicines are poisonous at high doses.
That's why you're supposed to listen to your doctor.And how come no one is complaining about the bootleggers who were using denatured alcohol without properly distilling it?
But for their actions, nobody would've been poisoned by this.Worse, drug dealers still do that today, too, just to make a buck, when they cut their drugs with other poisonous substances and the government sure isn't forcing that upon them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31308558</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1267349640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you may lay these 10,000 deaths at the feet of authoritarianism and christianity.</p></div><p>I abhor people who push their religious beliefs onto others as much as anyone else here, but come on.  It's not like they were poisoning beer being sold off the shelf, they were adding poisons to stuff that <i>people already should not have been drinking even before prohibition</i>.<br>
<br>
Blaming all those deaths on "authoritarianism and christianity" is as ridiculous as blaming fuel manufacturers for deaths that result from someone drinking gasoline that has ethanol mixed in with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you may lay these 10,000 deaths at the feet of authoritarianism and christianity.I abhor people who push their religious beliefs onto others as much as anyone else here , but come on .
It 's not like they were poisoning beer being sold off the shelf , they were adding poisons to stuff that people already should not have been drinking even before prohibition .
Blaming all those deaths on " authoritarianism and christianity " is as ridiculous as blaming fuel manufacturers for deaths that result from someone drinking gasoline that has ethanol mixed in with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you may lay these 10,000 deaths at the feet of authoritarianism and christianity.I abhor people who push their religious beliefs onto others as much as anyone else here, but come on.
It's not like they were poisoning beer being sold off the shelf, they were adding poisons to stuff that people already should not have been drinking even before prohibition.
Blaming all those deaths on "authoritarianism and christianity" is as ridiculous as blaming fuel manufacturers for deaths that result from someone drinking gasoline that has ethanol mixed in with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302222</id>
	<title>Re:Denaturing Alcohol is standard practice...</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1267288920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They commonly use Methanol and Acetone to denature commercially available ethanol. I also believe they use bittering chemicals such as Bitrex to make the stuff unpalatable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They commonly use Methanol and Acetone to denature commercially available ethanol .
I also believe they use bittering chemicals such as Bitrex to make the stuff unpalatable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They commonly use Methanol and Acetone to denature commercially available ethanol.
I also believe they use bittering chemicals such as Bitrex to make the stuff unpalatable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267282320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religionists are against booze, those disagreeing with religion are going to Hell, might as well give them an express ticket.</p><p>That Prohibition and the poisoning campaign happened prove this post is no troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religionists are against booze , those disagreeing with religion are going to Hell , might as well give them an express ticket.That Prohibition and the poisoning campaign happened prove this post is no troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religionists are against booze, those disagreeing with religion are going to Hell, might as well give them an express ticket.That Prohibition and the poisoning campaign happened prove this post is no troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305938</id>
	<title>Not enough booze</title>
	<author>kaliann</author>
	<datestamp>1267374240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, ethylene glycol is the active ingredient in antifreeze, as others have mentioned, not an additive for nefarious purposes.  These days there are alternative antifreezes that people can use, but the ethylene glycol variety is not uncommon.  Usually companies try to add brightly colored dyes and bittering agents to reduce the likelihood of consumption.</p><p>Secondly, one of the few things that would make antifreeze LESS dangerous is... ethanol.  Yep.<br>Ethanol competes with ethylene glycol for alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver.  Since the dehydrogenated product is the really dangerous part, ethanol prevents transformation into the deadliest form.  Back before there was a readily available antidote in veterinary hospitals, the standard of care involved everclear and getting the patient totally sauced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , ethylene glycol is the active ingredient in antifreeze , as others have mentioned , not an additive for nefarious purposes .
These days there are alternative antifreezes that people can use , but the ethylene glycol variety is not uncommon .
Usually companies try to add brightly colored dyes and bittering agents to reduce the likelihood of consumption.Secondly , one of the few things that would make antifreeze LESS dangerous is... ethanol. Yep.Ethanol competes with ethylene glycol for alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver .
Since the dehydrogenated product is the really dangerous part , ethanol prevents transformation into the deadliest form .
Back before there was a readily available antidote in veterinary hospitals , the standard of care involved everclear and getting the patient totally sauced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, ethylene glycol is the active ingredient in antifreeze, as others have mentioned, not an additive for nefarious purposes.
These days there are alternative antifreezes that people can use, but the ethylene glycol variety is not uncommon.
Usually companies try to add brightly colored dyes and bittering agents to reduce the likelihood of consumption.Secondly, one of the few things that would make antifreeze LESS dangerous is... ethanol.  Yep.Ethanol competes with ethylene glycol for alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver.
Since the dehydrogenated product is the really dangerous part, ethanol prevents transformation into the deadliest form.
Back before there was a readily available antidote in veterinary hospitals, the standard of care involved everclear and getting the patient totally sauced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412</id>
	<title>So who is after your rights?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1267281660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prohibition passed congress under the administration of a Republican president (Teddy Roosevelt).  It then went to the desk of a Democratic president (Wilson) who vetoed the measure.  The congress in their infinite wisdom then overturned his veto.  Then in 1933, under another Democratic president (Franklin Roosevelt) prohibition was repealed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prohibition passed congress under the administration of a Republican president ( Teddy Roosevelt ) .
It then went to the desk of a Democratic president ( Wilson ) who vetoed the measure .
The congress in their infinite wisdom then overturned his veto .
Then in 1933 , under another Democratic president ( Franklin Roosevelt ) prohibition was repealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prohibition passed congress under the administration of a Republican president (Teddy Roosevelt).
It then went to the desk of a Democratic president (Wilson) who vetoed the measure.
The congress in their infinite wisdom then overturned his veto.
Then in 1933, under another Democratic president (Franklin Roosevelt) prohibition was repealed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303522</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>AnotherUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1267387500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those that don't make the connection:
<br> <br>
Acetaminophen = Tylenol
<br> <br>
The acetaminophen + opiate is basically just Tylenol with codeine, which is generally available with a prescription.  Terrible stuff.  Oh, wait, being sick with diarrhea is worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those that do n't make the connection : Acetaminophen = Tylenol The acetaminophen + opiate is basically just Tylenol with codeine , which is generally available with a prescription .
Terrible stuff .
Oh , wait , being sick with diarrhea is worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those that don't make the connection:
 
Acetaminophen = Tylenol
 
The acetaminophen + opiate is basically just Tylenol with codeine, which is generally available with a prescription.
Terrible stuff.
Oh, wait, being sick with diarrhea is worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302790</id>
	<title>Amen for Capone then!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267293660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drink his stuff, it came from Canada at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drink his stuff , it came from Canada at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drink his stuff, it came from Canada at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302322</id>
	<title>DEA sprays poison paraquat on marijuana now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267289700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow the government sure was crazy back then, glad they would never do anything to intentionaly hurt people anymore!</p><p>WRONG! The DEA spray a strong poison called paraquat on outdoor marijuana plants now! It can cause death and injury to humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow the government sure was crazy back then , glad they would never do anything to intentionaly hurt people anymore ! WRONG !
The DEA spray a strong poison called paraquat on outdoor marijuana plants now !
It can cause death and injury to humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow the government sure was crazy back then, glad they would never do anything to intentionaly hurt people anymore!WRONG!
The DEA spray a strong poison called paraquat on outdoor marijuana plants now!
It can cause death and injury to humans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this, because the industrial alcohol <b>IS</b> poison,  even before the government started meddling.
</p><p>
To avoid the <b>excise tax</b>  on  liquors,   industrial alcohol has to have <b>methanol</b> added to it.
</p><p>
The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol,  and unsuitable for drinking.
But is required for it to be tax exempt.
</p><p>
Anyways, the issue is during the prohbition, some people were already drinking that unsuitable stuff.
They were desperate, they were (probably) addicted, they took what they could get.
So a lot of people were drinking this (a bit) industrial alcohol containing some [probably small] quantity of poisonous methanol.
</p><p>
So then the government' comes up with this  "solution"  is to make the stuff more deadly....
swiftly and quietly...brilliant!
</p><p>
Just because they didn't keep it a secret doesn't mean everyone automatically knew about it.
</p><p>
Or even that they had a good alternative.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this , because the industrial alcohol IS poison , even before the government started meddling .
To avoid the excise tax on liquors , industrial alcohol has to have methanol added to it .
The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol , and unsuitable for drinking .
But is required for it to be tax exempt .
Anyways , the issue is during the prohbition , some people were already drinking that unsuitable stuff .
They were desperate , they were ( probably ) addicted , they took what they could get .
So a lot of people were drinking this ( a bit ) industrial alcohol containing some [ probably small ] quantity of poisonous methanol .
So then the government ' comes up with this " solution " is to make the stuff more deadly... . swiftly and quietly...brilliant !
Just because they did n't keep it a secret does n't mean everyone automatically knew about it .
Or even that they had a good alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this, because the industrial alcohol IS poison,  even before the government started meddling.
To avoid the excise tax  on  liquors,   industrial alcohol has to have methanol added to it.
The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol,  and unsuitable for drinking.
But is required for it to be tax exempt.
Anyways, the issue is during the prohbition, some people were already drinking that unsuitable stuff.
They were desperate, they were (probably) addicted, they took what they could get.
So a lot of people were drinking this (a bit) industrial alcohol containing some [probably small] quantity of poisonous methanol.
So then the government' comes up with this  "solution"  is to make the stuff more deadly....
swiftly and quietly...brilliant!
Just because they didn't keep it a secret doesn't mean everyone automatically knew about it.
Or even that they had a good alternative.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1267388760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity.  As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism.  Don't get me wrong, many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism, but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?</p><p>Like the other poster said, how can someone claim to be a Christian if they want to ban alcohol?  The Bible specifically instructs people to drink it.  And it also specifically opposes using force to manipulate the behavior of others.  Christianity should not have to own this dark chapter of history, rather it should disown the bastards who perpetrated it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity .
As far as I can tell , christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism .
Do n't get me wrong , many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism , but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it 's basic tenants , willfully ignore it , or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy ? Like the other poster said , how can someone claim to be a Christian if they want to ban alcohol ?
The Bible specifically instructs people to drink it .
And it also specifically opposes using force to manipulate the behavior of others .
Christianity should not have to own this dark chapter of history , rather it should disown the bastards who perpetrated it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity.
As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism.
Don't get me wrong, many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism, but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?Like the other poster said, how can someone claim to be a Christian if they want to ban alcohol?
The Bible specifically instructs people to drink it.
And it also specifically opposes using force to manipulate the behavior of others.
Christianity should not have to own this dark chapter of history, rather it should disown the bastards who perpetrated it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301700</id>
	<title>Still happening</title>
	<author>stonecypher</author>
	<datestamp>1267284000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is still going on today with other illegal substances.  The US has, for example, been poisoning marijuana fields with paraquat for decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is still going on today with other illegal substances .
The US has , for example , been poisoning marijuana fields with paraquat for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is still going on today with other illegal substances.
The US has, for example, been poisoning marijuana fields with paraquat for decades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302130</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1267287900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...what i fear the most is the government that ACTIVELY PROMOTES the use of drugs...</i></p><p>You mean like <a href="http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM" title="wsu.edu" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wsu.edu]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...what i fear the most is the government that ACTIVELY PROMOTES the use of drugs...You mean like this [ wsu.edu ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what i fear the most is the government that ACTIVELY PROMOTES the use of drugs...You mean like this [wsu.edu]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080</id>
	<title>Sounds Like A Witch's Brew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins &mdash; adding such chemicals as kerosene, brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone.</p></div><p>These days we call this stuff 'preservatives' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann's snack cakes.<br> <br>Personally I think we're all embalming ourselves one day at a time by eating this stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins    adding such chemicals as kerosene , brucine ( a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine ) , gasoline , benzene , cadmium , iodine , zinc , mercury salts , nicotine , ether , formaldehyde , chloroform , camphor , carbolic acid , quinine , and acetone.These days we call this stuff 'preservatives ' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann 's snack cakes .
Personally I think we 're all embalming ourselves one day at a time by eating this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins — adding such chemicals as kerosene, brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone.These days we call this stuff 'preservatives' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann's snack cakes.
Personally I think we're all embalming ourselves one day at a time by eating this stuff.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31306112</id>
	<title>bad summary/title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267375560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is not about the poisioning of drinkinng alcohol, ie Ethanol.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol</p><p>its about the poisoning of other, induststrial alchohol that are NOT meant for human consumption. this is akin to the chemicals added to propane and natural gas to make them more readility detectable by smell.</p><p>anyone who drinks a toxic alcohol not meant for human consumption and dies from it falls into the darwin award category.</p><p>that is what this article is about: idiots who in an uneducated attempt to get around prohibition saw the word "alcohol", a chemical term, and drank something they weren't supposed to in the first place.</p><p>Alcohol is a family of chemicals. Only ONE type of alcohol is made for consumptions. ALL OTHER ALCOHOLS are extremely toxic to the body, whether it be methanol (wood grain), isopropyl (rubbing) or others.</p><p>Bad summary and bad title.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is not about the poisioning of drinkinng alcohol , ie Ethanol.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholits about the poisoning of other , induststrial alchohol that are NOT meant for human consumption .
this is akin to the chemicals added to propane and natural gas to make them more readility detectable by smell.anyone who drinks a toxic alcohol not meant for human consumption and dies from it falls into the darwin award category.that is what this article is about : idiots who in an uneducated attempt to get around prohibition saw the word " alcohol " , a chemical term , and drank something they were n't supposed to in the first place.Alcohol is a family of chemicals .
Only ONE type of alcohol is made for consumptions .
ALL OTHER ALCOHOLS are extremely toxic to the body , whether it be methanol ( wood grain ) , isopropyl ( rubbing ) or others.Bad summary and bad title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is not about the poisioning of drinkinng alcohol, ie Ethanol.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholits about the poisoning of other, induststrial alchohol that are NOT meant for human consumption.
this is akin to the chemicals added to propane and natural gas to make them more readility detectable by smell.anyone who drinks a toxic alcohol not meant for human consumption and dies from it falls into the darwin award category.that is what this article is about: idiots who in an uneducated attempt to get around prohibition saw the word "alcohol", a chemical term, and drank something they weren't supposed to in the first place.Alcohol is a family of chemicals.
Only ONE type of alcohol is made for consumptions.
ALL OTHER ALCOHOLS are extremely toxic to the body, whether it be methanol (wood grain), isopropyl (rubbing) or others.Bad summary and bad title.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301512</id>
	<title>Re:Methanol (Read TFA!)</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1267282560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they weren't poisoning methanol! They were poisoning industrial ethyl alcohol WITH methanol, up to 10\% (plus other stuff). It is the methanol that was added that was the real killer (the lethal dose is around 20 ml or so).</p><p>Read TFA. In the fine tradition of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summaries, it is an inaccurate condensation of the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they were n't poisoning methanol !
They were poisoning industrial ethyl alcohol WITH methanol , up to 10 \ % ( plus other stuff ) .
It is the methanol that was added that was the real killer ( the lethal dose is around 20 ml or so ) .Read TFA .
In the fine tradition of / .
summaries , it is an inaccurate condensation of the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they weren't poisoning methanol!
They were poisoning industrial ethyl alcohol WITH methanol, up to 10\% (plus other stuff).
It is the methanol that was added that was the real killer (the lethal dose is around 20 ml or so).Read TFA.
In the fine tradition of /.
summaries, it is an inaccurate condensation of the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303918</id>
	<title>Poisoning poison</title>
	<author>GerryHattrick</author>
	<datestamp>1267349400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely the point most comments here are missing is that *methyl* alcohol is already a poison.  So it's a kindly thought, and not mere authoritarian wickedness, to put something in that makes it unpalatable, or truly vomitworthy.  Denaturing *ethyl* alcohol is a different matter - if you have to, you want something both unpalatable and difficult to remove, but of course it shouldn't be poisonous of itself - just in case of abuse</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely the point most comments here are missing is that * methyl * alcohol is already a poison .
So it 's a kindly thought , and not mere authoritarian wickedness , to put something in that makes it unpalatable , or truly vomitworthy .
Denaturing * ethyl * alcohol is a different matter - if you have to , you want something both unpalatable and difficult to remove , but of course it should n't be poisonous of itself - just in case of abuse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely the point most comments here are missing is that *methyl* alcohol is already a poison.
So it's a kindly thought, and not mere authoritarian wickedness, to put something in that makes it unpalatable, or truly vomitworthy.
Denaturing *ethyl* alcohol is a different matter - if you have to, you want something both unpalatable and difficult to remove, but of course it shouldn't be poisonous of itself - just in case of abuse</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301536</id>
	<title>Re:Listen you Dolts</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1267282740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you deliberately make something far more poisonous than it needs to be precisely because you expect someone to drink it and want them to suffer a horrible death as a result, then it's absolutely a heinous crime, and anyone going along with it should have been tried as murderers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you deliberately make something far more poisonous than it needs to be precisely because you expect someone to drink it and want them to suffer a horrible death as a result , then it 's absolutely a heinous crime , and anyone going along with it should have been tried as murderers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you deliberately make something far more poisonous than it needs to be precisely because you expect someone to drink it and want them to suffer a horrible death as a result, then it's absolutely a heinous crime, and anyone going along with it should have been tried as murderers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058</id>
	<title>Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice how much hate exists among our democracy.  (Ok, Representative democracy)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice how much hate exists among our democracy .
( Ok , Representative democracy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice how much hate exists among our democracy.
(Ok, Representative democracy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302178</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>television has destroyed more people's minds, culture (read the book: Bowling Alone), etc. than any drug will do. The war on drugs causes the problems it proposes to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>television has destroyed more people 's minds , culture ( read the book : Bowling Alone ) , etc .
than any drug will do .
The war on drugs causes the problems it proposes to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>television has destroyed more people's minds, culture (read the book: Bowling Alone), etc.
than any drug will do.
The war on drugs causes the problems it proposes to solve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</id>
	<title>Listen you Dolts</title>
	<author>PatTheGreat</author>
	<datestamp>1267280640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They still do this stuff.  It's called denatured.  You're not supposed to drink industrial solvents.  That's why they're industrial.  No one complains that we poison antifreeze with ethylene glycol - BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DRINK ANTIFREEZE.  Stuff meant for consumption is taxed at a higher rate and undergoes a lot of inspections to make sure it's fit for human consumption.  If it's not meant for human consumption, they don't get taxed as heavily and don't undergo inspections.  How do you prove your stuff isn't meant for humans?  You poison it and LABEL IT AS SUCH.  Industrial solvents are labeled poisonous because they are.  We're not poisoning the masses, we are providing them solvents at cheaper rates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They still do this stuff .
It 's called denatured .
You 're not supposed to drink industrial solvents .
That 's why they 're industrial .
No one complains that we poison antifreeze with ethylene glycol - BECAUSE YOU 'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DRINK ANTIFREEZE .
Stuff meant for consumption is taxed at a higher rate and undergoes a lot of inspections to make sure it 's fit for human consumption .
If it 's not meant for human consumption , they do n't get taxed as heavily and do n't undergo inspections .
How do you prove your stuff is n't meant for humans ?
You poison it and LABEL IT AS SUCH .
Industrial solvents are labeled poisonous because they are .
We 're not poisoning the masses , we are providing them solvents at cheaper rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still do this stuff.
It's called denatured.
You're not supposed to drink industrial solvents.
That's why they're industrial.
No one complains that we poison antifreeze with ethylene glycol - BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DRINK ANTIFREEZE.
Stuff meant for consumption is taxed at a higher rate and undergoes a lot of inspections to make sure it's fit for human consumption.
If it's not meant for human consumption, they don't get taxed as heavily and don't undergo inspections.
How do you prove your stuff isn't meant for humans?
You poison it and LABEL IT AS SUCH.
Industrial solvents are labeled poisonous because they are.
We're not poisoning the masses, we are providing them solvents at cheaper rates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301680</id>
	<title>Re:So who is after your rights?</title>
	<author>aronschatz</author>
	<datestamp>1267283760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A progressive is a progressive no matter which party they are under. The D or the R doesn't matter, stop thinking one party is better than the other.</p><p>Political parties are just bad for this country. Washington knew it. And by Washington, I mean the founding father.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A progressive is a progressive no matter which party they are under .
The D or the R does n't matter , stop thinking one party is better than the other.Political parties are just bad for this country .
Washington knew it .
And by Washington , I mean the founding father .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A progressive is a progressive no matter which party they are under.
The D or the R doesn't matter, stop thinking one party is better than the other.Political parties are just bad for this country.
Washington knew it.
And by Washington, I mean the founding father.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307172</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1267382520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism,</i></p><p>Sounds a lot like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_true\_scotsman" title="wikipedia.org">"No True Scotsman" fallacy</a> [wikipedia.org] to me.  Christianity is defined by its followers, and only by its tenets in how its followers take them up.</p><p>Its like saying the Judeo-Christian religions are peaceful because one of the Ten Commandments says "thou shall not murder".  Or saying politicians are inherently honest because all of them claim to be truthful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism,Sounds a lot like the " No True Scotsman " fallacy [ wikipedia.org ] to me .
Christianity is defined by its followers , and only by its tenets in how its followers take them up.Its like saying the Judeo-Christian religions are peaceful because one of the Ten Commandments says " thou shall not murder " .
Or saying politicians are inherently honest because all of them claim to be truthful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism,Sounds a lot like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy [wikipedia.org] to me.
Christianity is defined by its followers, and only by its tenets in how its followers take them up.Its like saying the Judeo-Christian religions are peaceful because one of the Ten Commandments says "thou shall not murder".
Or saying politicians are inherently honest because all of them claim to be truthful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303474</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>feuerfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1267300500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post is so chock-full of unnecessary hyperbole and alarmism that it's hard to know where to start picking it apart. First of all, you don't need to look to illegal drugs to find something that's insidiously addictive and "freedom destroying"; nicotine, an already-legal and freely available drug, is <a href="http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/05/dayintech\_0516" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">as addictive as heroin</a> [wired.com] (and I should point out that it's the tobacco corporations, not the government, who are profiting the most from the millions of cigarette addicts.)</p><p>Second, you're making the false assumption that everyone who supports legalization of addictive drugs also supports the recreational use of these drugs. This is not the case at all. The philosophy behind addictive drug legalization has two main facets; one is that - yes - we should not legislate what others may or may not do with their bodies. If someone wants to turn themselves into a slave to opioids, they can be my guest. Even though I don't approve, I'm not going to stop them; it's their choice, and even if they might find themselves without a choice to stop down the road, that doesn't change the essential fact that they had the freedom to inflict their addiction upon themselves in the first place. Secondly, and more importantly, it's about harm-reduction. People are going to use drugs no matter what; legalizing them would simultaneously dramatically reduce the health risks (by allowing addicts access to pure, regulated, measured doses) and positively impact society (by cutting out a gigantic source of profit for criminal organizations across the world.)</p><p>In fact, on that note, I'll show you the flip side of the situation: By allowing drugs such as coke and heroin to remain illegal, we are handing billions of dollars to Mexican drug cartels, the Taliban, and other major criminal organizations, who then terrorize local populations, bribe and corrupt government/military officials, and generally speaking threaten the very foundation of civilized life in the countries that they operate in. Are you telling me that the bloodbath currently happening in Mexico - which is costing thousands of people their ultimate freedom, <em>life</em> - is less important than some heroin junkie's self-inflicted "freedom destruction"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is so chock-full of unnecessary hyperbole and alarmism that it 's hard to know where to start picking it apart .
First of all , you do n't need to look to illegal drugs to find something that 's insidiously addictive and " freedom destroying " ; nicotine , an already-legal and freely available drug , is as addictive as heroin [ wired.com ] ( and I should point out that it 's the tobacco corporations , not the government , who are profiting the most from the millions of cigarette addicts .
) Second , you 're making the false assumption that everyone who supports legalization of addictive drugs also supports the recreational use of these drugs .
This is not the case at all .
The philosophy behind addictive drug legalization has two main facets ; one is that - yes - we should not legislate what others may or may not do with their bodies .
If someone wants to turn themselves into a slave to opioids , they can be my guest .
Even though I do n't approve , I 'm not going to stop them ; it 's their choice , and even if they might find themselves without a choice to stop down the road , that does n't change the essential fact that they had the freedom to inflict their addiction upon themselves in the first place .
Secondly , and more importantly , it 's about harm-reduction .
People are going to use drugs no matter what ; legalizing them would simultaneously dramatically reduce the health risks ( by allowing addicts access to pure , regulated , measured doses ) and positively impact society ( by cutting out a gigantic source of profit for criminal organizations across the world .
) In fact , on that note , I 'll show you the flip side of the situation : By allowing drugs such as coke and heroin to remain illegal , we are handing billions of dollars to Mexican drug cartels , the Taliban , and other major criminal organizations , who then terrorize local populations , bribe and corrupt government/military officials , and generally speaking threaten the very foundation of civilized life in the countries that they operate in .
Are you telling me that the bloodbath currently happening in Mexico - which is costing thousands of people their ultimate freedom , life - is less important than some heroin junkie 's self-inflicted " freedom destruction " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is so chock-full of unnecessary hyperbole and alarmism that it's hard to know where to start picking it apart.
First of all, you don't need to look to illegal drugs to find something that's insidiously addictive and "freedom destroying"; nicotine, an already-legal and freely available drug, is as addictive as heroin [wired.com] (and I should point out that it's the tobacco corporations, not the government, who are profiting the most from the millions of cigarette addicts.
)Second, you're making the false assumption that everyone who supports legalization of addictive drugs also supports the recreational use of these drugs.
This is not the case at all.
The philosophy behind addictive drug legalization has two main facets; one is that - yes - we should not legislate what others may or may not do with their bodies.
If someone wants to turn themselves into a slave to opioids, they can be my guest.
Even though I don't approve, I'm not going to stop them; it's their choice, and even if they might find themselves without a choice to stop down the road, that doesn't change the essential fact that they had the freedom to inflict their addiction upon themselves in the first place.
Secondly, and more importantly, it's about harm-reduction.
People are going to use drugs no matter what; legalizing them would simultaneously dramatically reduce the health risks (by allowing addicts access to pure, regulated, measured doses) and positively impact society (by cutting out a gigantic source of profit for criminal organizations across the world.
)In fact, on that note, I'll show you the flip side of the situation: By allowing drugs such as coke and heroin to remain illegal, we are handing billions of dollars to Mexican drug cartels, the Taliban, and other major criminal organizations, who then terrorize local populations, bribe and corrupt government/military officials, and generally speaking threaten the very foundation of civilized life in the countries that they operate in.
Are you telling me that the bloodbath currently happening in Mexico - which is costing thousands of people their ultimate freedom, life - is less important than some heroin junkie's self-inflicted "freedom destruction"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302106</id>
	<title>Stop drinking!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To get you to stop drinking I'll put nicotine in your drink!</p><p>Why are you still drinking!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get you to stop drinking I 'll put nicotine in your drink ! Why are you still drinking !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get you to stop drinking I'll put nicotine in your drink!Why are you still drinking!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304428</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>tehdaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267358880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't understand addiction very well at all. Banning drugs increases their addictive power significantly. This is established psychology. It also greatly increases the harm from drugs - they cost tons more, financially ruining the addicts, as well as discouraging them from treatment.<p>
You are worried about a government promoting drugs? well, that would be bad. That would about double the number of addicts. Yes, only double. Most users of hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.) never become addicts. Basically there is a huge chunk of the population that is immune to addiction to most drugs. Why? They don't need what the drug provides. I'll use one of the most addictive substances known as an example. </p><p>People who try to quit smoking have about a 5\% chance of succeeding cold turkey. That goes up to 15\% with nicotine patches/gum. With an antidepressant? 30\%. </p><p>Most addicts are depressed, or have mental illness, or too much stress, etc. This is what makes them vulnerable to 'self-medicate' to fix their troubles. Since drugs do alter the reward/pleasure centers in ways similar to what the normal mind naturally does, it does temporarily 'fix' the problem. Only it isn't permanent, it usually makes the mind even more off-balance once the drug wears off, -&gt; classic addiction symptoms. However if the mind is already getting what it needs, then the motivation to take more isn't strong enough to cause addiction. It does a 'wow that was quite a trip' and goes on with it's life as normal. Just the way most adults who drink alcohol do.</p><p>It should be obvious to anyone that drugs aren't a serious threat to mankind. Most of them have been around for 1000's of years, and they haven't been banned until very recently. Unfortunately logic and knowledge aren't most people's strong points. What we get instead is common 'sense' like yours. (ie. whatever sense people do have in common...)</p><p>
tl;dr version: Drugs are NOT the 'most successful destroyer of freedom', and  banning them only makes them more successful destroyers of freedom. both for the addicts, and everyone else.</p><p>T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't understand addiction very well at all .
Banning drugs increases their addictive power significantly .
This is established psychology .
It also greatly increases the harm from drugs - they cost tons more , financially ruining the addicts , as well as discouraging them from treatment .
You are worried about a government promoting drugs ?
well , that would be bad .
That would about double the number of addicts .
Yes , only double .
Most users of hard drugs ( heroin , cocaine , etc .
) never become addicts .
Basically there is a huge chunk of the population that is immune to addiction to most drugs .
Why ? They do n't need what the drug provides .
I 'll use one of the most addictive substances known as an example .
People who try to quit smoking have about a 5 \ % chance of succeeding cold turkey .
That goes up to 15 \ % with nicotine patches/gum .
With an antidepressant ?
30 \ % . Most addicts are depressed , or have mental illness , or too much stress , etc .
This is what makes them vulnerable to 'self-medicate ' to fix their troubles .
Since drugs do alter the reward/pleasure centers in ways similar to what the normal mind naturally does , it does temporarily 'fix ' the problem .
Only it is n't permanent , it usually makes the mind even more off-balance once the drug wears off , - &gt; classic addiction symptoms .
However if the mind is already getting what it needs , then the motivation to take more is n't strong enough to cause addiction .
It does a 'wow that was quite a trip ' and goes on with it 's life as normal .
Just the way most adults who drink alcohol do.It should be obvious to anyone that drugs are n't a serious threat to mankind .
Most of them have been around for 1000 's of years , and they have n't been banned until very recently .
Unfortunately logic and knowledge are n't most people 's strong points .
What we get instead is common 'sense ' like yours .
( ie. whatever sense people do have in common... ) tl ; dr version : Drugs are NOT the 'most successful destroyer of freedom ' , and banning them only makes them more successful destroyers of freedom .
both for the addicts , and everyone else.T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't understand addiction very well at all.
Banning drugs increases their addictive power significantly.
This is established psychology.
It also greatly increases the harm from drugs - they cost tons more, financially ruining the addicts, as well as discouraging them from treatment.
You are worried about a government promoting drugs?
well, that would be bad.
That would about double the number of addicts.
Yes, only double.
Most users of hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.
) never become addicts.
Basically there is a huge chunk of the population that is immune to addiction to most drugs.
Why? They don't need what the drug provides.
I'll use one of the most addictive substances known as an example.
People who try to quit smoking have about a 5\% chance of succeeding cold turkey.
That goes up to 15\% with nicotine patches/gum.
With an antidepressant?
30\%. Most addicts are depressed, or have mental illness, or too much stress, etc.
This is what makes them vulnerable to 'self-medicate' to fix their troubles.
Since drugs do alter the reward/pleasure centers in ways similar to what the normal mind naturally does, it does temporarily 'fix' the problem.
Only it isn't permanent, it usually makes the mind even more off-balance once the drug wears off, -&gt; classic addiction symptoms.
However if the mind is already getting what it needs, then the motivation to take more isn't strong enough to cause addiction.
It does a 'wow that was quite a trip' and goes on with it's life as normal.
Just the way most adults who drink alcohol do.It should be obvious to anyone that drugs aren't a serious threat to mankind.
Most of them have been around for 1000's of years, and they haven't been banned until very recently.
Unfortunately logic and knowledge aren't most people's strong points.
What we get instead is common 'sense' like yours.
(ie. whatever sense people do have in common...)
tl;dr version: Drugs are NOT the 'most successful destroyer of freedom', and  banning them only makes them more successful destroyers of freedom.
both for the addicts, and everyone else.T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303832</id>
	<title>Big deal...</title>
	<author>nataflux</author>
	<datestamp>1267348260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alcohol is already poison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alcohol is already poison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alcohol is already poison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301408</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet now days anyone mentioning a "death panel" is mocked... <br>Are they really that unthinkable considering these sort of events?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet now days anyone mentioning a " death panel " is mocked... Are they really that unthinkable considering these sort of events ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet now days anyone mentioning a "death panel" is mocked... Are they really that unthinkable considering these sort of events?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301394</id>
	<title>summary is flamebait!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Early on in the 13-year experiment to outlaw ethyl alcohol, bootleggers turned to its poisonous cousin methyl alcohol, also known as wood alcohol, to quench the nation's thirst. Norris and Gettler saw the results carried into the city morgue. To begin with, methyl alcohol causes the same pleasant feelings of inebriation as ethyl alcohol, but these are quickly followed by blindness, coma and death.</p></div></blockquote><p>  So basically the bootleggers were defrauding the drinkers during prohibition by replacing the cheap (but legal for industrial uses) Methanol which can lead to blindness and ultimately death.  The underground market was defrauding and poisoning people wholesale.  So in effect, the Methanol was only safe to be used in industrial products as it was and would never have poisoned people if it had not been fraudulently added to alcoholic beverages in the first place.  That isn't to say the government wasn't wrong, it most certainly was as is the entire concept of a drug war in of its self, it is that these underground markets were knowingly putting tainted Methanol into their products and killing drinkers as a result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Early on in the 13-year experiment to outlaw ethyl alcohol , bootleggers turned to its poisonous cousin methyl alcohol , also known as wood alcohol , to quench the nation 's thirst .
Norris and Gettler saw the results carried into the city morgue .
To begin with , methyl alcohol causes the same pleasant feelings of inebriation as ethyl alcohol , but these are quickly followed by blindness , coma and death .
So basically the bootleggers were defrauding the drinkers during prohibition by replacing the cheap ( but legal for industrial uses ) Methanol which can lead to blindness and ultimately death .
The underground market was defrauding and poisoning people wholesale .
So in effect , the Methanol was only safe to be used in industrial products as it was and would never have poisoned people if it had not been fraudulently added to alcoholic beverages in the first place .
That is n't to say the government was n't wrong , it most certainly was as is the entire concept of a drug war in of its self , it is that these underground markets were knowingly putting tainted Methanol into their products and killing drinkers as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Early on in the 13-year experiment to outlaw ethyl alcohol, bootleggers turned to its poisonous cousin methyl alcohol, also known as wood alcohol, to quench the nation's thirst.
Norris and Gettler saw the results carried into the city morgue.
To begin with, methyl alcohol causes the same pleasant feelings of inebriation as ethyl alcohol, but these are quickly followed by blindness, coma and death.
So basically the bootleggers were defrauding the drinkers during prohibition by replacing the cheap (but legal for industrial uses) Methanol which can lead to blindness and ultimately death.
The underground market was defrauding and poisoning people wholesale.
So in effect, the Methanol was only safe to be used in industrial products as it was and would never have poisoned people if it had not been fraudulently added to alcoholic beverages in the first place.
That isn't to say the government wasn't wrong, it most certainly was as is the entire concept of a drug war in of its self, it is that these underground markets were knowingly putting tainted Methanol into their products and killing drinkers as a result.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301486</id>
	<title>That's nothing!</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1267282380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have it from high authority that the government laces the narcotics with a mix of high fructose corn syrup, nutra sweet, MSG and margarine!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have it from high authority that the government laces the narcotics with a mix of high fructose corn syrup , nutra sweet , MSG and margarine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have it from high authority that the government laces the narcotics with a mix of high fructose corn syrup, nutra sweet, MSG and margarine!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301752</id>
	<title>crimes without victims</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1267284600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always puzzled by all those so-called crimes that have no victims: alcohol, drugs, certain religions in certain countries... Or rather, where the only potential victim is the criminal him/her-self.</p><p>To me, those are what more clearly mark the difference between freedom and tyranny. It really bothers me when western democracies engage in such repressive behaviour, and set such a bad example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always puzzled by all those so-called crimes that have no victims : alcohol , drugs , certain religions in certain countries... Or rather , where the only potential victim is the criminal him/her-self.To me , those are what more clearly mark the difference between freedom and tyranny .
It really bothers me when western democracies engage in such repressive behaviour , and set such a bad example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always puzzled by all those so-called crimes that have no victims: alcohol, drugs, certain religions in certain countries... Or rather, where the only potential victim is the criminal him/her-self.To me, those are what more clearly mark the difference between freedom and tyranny.
It really bothers me when western democracies engage in such repressive behaviour, and set such a bad example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301460</id>
	<title>They still do this</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1267282080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note that they state "Industrial Alcohol."   The issue with prohibition is that you can't completely ban alcohol because it's too important a chemical and is used as a fuel, a solvent, an antiseptic, a cleaning agent, an octane booster, an antifreeze and many other things.   "Industrial alcohol" is, as the name implies, alcohol that is not for drinking but for other uses.   If it were produced to the same standards as spirits, it would be just as drinkable.   Of course, this poses a problem for taxing and such.   Liquors are heavily taxed and regulated, and if you could just go to your local hardware store and buy a jug of alcohol and drink it, the whole system would be undermined.
<br> <br>
It's called "denatured alcohol" - it has other stuff in it to make it non-drinkable.   Methanol is most common.  Other things sometimes added are isoproponal, methy ethyl kerotone, kerosene, ethanol etc etc.   Yes, of course it's still very much done.  You're not supposed to drink industrial solvent anyway!   By the way, that "ethanol" that is produced from corn and used to add to gasoline is also the same damn compound and would be drinkable if there was not additional stuff added to it.  Most of it is shipped with 15\% gasoline added.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that they state " Industrial Alcohol .
" The issue with prohibition is that you ca n't completely ban alcohol because it 's too important a chemical and is used as a fuel , a solvent , an antiseptic , a cleaning agent , an octane booster , an antifreeze and many other things .
" Industrial alcohol " is , as the name implies , alcohol that is not for drinking but for other uses .
If it were produced to the same standards as spirits , it would be just as drinkable .
Of course , this poses a problem for taxing and such .
Liquors are heavily taxed and regulated , and if you could just go to your local hardware store and buy a jug of alcohol and drink it , the whole system would be undermined .
It 's called " denatured alcohol " - it has other stuff in it to make it non-drinkable .
Methanol is most common .
Other things sometimes added are isoproponal , methy ethyl kerotone , kerosene , ethanol etc etc .
Yes , of course it 's still very much done .
You 're not supposed to drink industrial solvent anyway !
By the way , that " ethanol " that is produced from corn and used to add to gasoline is also the same damn compound and would be drinkable if there was not additional stuff added to it .
Most of it is shipped with 15 \ % gasoline added .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that they state "Industrial Alcohol.
"   The issue with prohibition is that you can't completely ban alcohol because it's too important a chemical and is used as a fuel, a solvent, an antiseptic, a cleaning agent, an octane booster, an antifreeze and many other things.
"Industrial alcohol" is, as the name implies, alcohol that is not for drinking but for other uses.
If it were produced to the same standards as spirits, it would be just as drinkable.
Of course, this poses a problem for taxing and such.
Liquors are heavily taxed and regulated, and if you could just go to your local hardware store and buy a jug of alcohol and drink it, the whole system would be undermined.
It's called "denatured alcohol" - it has other stuff in it to make it non-drinkable.
Methanol is most common.
Other things sometimes added are isoproponal, methy ethyl kerotone, kerosene, ethanol etc etc.
Yes, of course it's still very much done.
You're not supposed to drink industrial solvent anyway!
By the way, that "ethanol" that is produced from corn and used to add to gasoline is also the same damn compound and would be drinkable if there was not additional stuff added to it.
Most of it is shipped with 15\% gasoline added.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301706</id>
	<title>Re:Listen you Dolts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make the Party proud O'Brien. How's that whole Junior Anti-Sex League thing going for you?</p><p>Maybe we should put lead in paint so people won't drink that too. Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make the Party proud O'Brien .
How 's that whole Junior Anti-Sex League thing going for you ? Maybe we should put lead in paint so people wo n't drink that too .
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make the Party proud O'Brien.
How's that whole Junior Anti-Sex League thing going for you?Maybe we should put lead in paint so people won't drink that too.
Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301496</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>MechaStreisand</author>
	<datestamp>1267282440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary is horribly misleading. It makes you think that people were just drinking methanol before the government started adding poisons, even though the methanol would kill anyone who drank it in similar quantities to ethanol. In the article, though, it states that methanol IS the poison that they were adding to ethanol. I was about to reply to you that adding things to make the methanol taste bad would <i>save</i> lives, but it made so little sense that I actually read the article and was enlightened. Whatever editor allowed that summary for that article should be fired, but I know that won't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is horribly misleading .
It makes you think that people were just drinking methanol before the government started adding poisons , even though the methanol would kill anyone who drank it in similar quantities to ethanol .
In the article , though , it states that methanol IS the poison that they were adding to ethanol .
I was about to reply to you that adding things to make the methanol taste bad would save lives , but it made so little sense that I actually read the article and was enlightened .
Whatever editor allowed that summary for that article should be fired , but I know that wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is horribly misleading.
It makes you think that people were just drinking methanol before the government started adding poisons, even though the methanol would kill anyone who drank it in similar quantities to ethanol.
In the article, though, it states that methanol IS the poison that they were adding to ethanol.
I was about to reply to you that adding things to make the methanol taste bad would save lives, but it made so little sense that I actually read the article and was enlightened.
Whatever editor allowed that summary for that article should be fired, but I know that won't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301072</id>
	<title>I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the goverment is also reaponsible for poisining MDMA pills and heroin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the goverment is also reaponsible for poisining MDMA pills and heroin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the goverment is also reaponsible for poisining MDMA pills and heroin?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303966</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267350120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this, because the industrial alcohol <b>IS</b> poison,  even before the government started meddling.</p><p>To avoid the <b>excise tax</b>  on  liquors,   industrial alcohol has to have <b>methanol</b> added to it.</p><p>The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol,  and unsuitable for drinking.<br>But is required for it to be tax exempt.</p></div><p>The government did this because they know people will not follow law, they follow their pocketbooks.  It is easier to force a person to a decree if that person profits more from that decree.  Therefore the companies will add methanol because the government makes it exempt from taxes, so the government get's what they want at small cost to the alcohol companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this , because the industrial alcohol IS poison , even before the government started meddling.To avoid the excise tax on liquors , industrial alcohol has to have methanol added to it.The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol , and unsuitable for drinking.But is required for it to be tax exempt.The government did this because they know people will not follow law , they follow their pocketbooks .
It is easier to force a person to a decree if that person profits more from that decree .
Therefore the companies will add methanol because the government makes it exempt from taxes , so the government get 's what they want at small cost to the alcohol companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this, because the industrial alcohol IS poison,  even before the government started meddling.To avoid the excise tax  on  liquors,   industrial alcohol has to have methanol added to it.The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol,  and unsuitable for drinking.But is required for it to be tax exempt.The government did this because they know people will not follow law, they follow their pocketbooks.
It is easier to force a person to a decree if that person profits more from that decree.
Therefore the companies will add methanol because the government makes it exempt from taxes, so the government get's what they want at small cost to the alcohol companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301196</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds Like A Witch's Brew</title>
	<author>SpazmodeusG</author>
	<datestamp>1267280220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are going to call you paranoid for that but it's pretty much true. Sodium Nitrite's one of the first that comes to mind.
<br> <br>
Sodium Nitrite has medical uses but to get the chemical approved for use as a treatment it has to go through a ton of tests.<br>
It is also used as a food preservative. For use in food the chemical is allowed until it is proven harmful.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium\_nitrite" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium\_nitrite</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are going to call you paranoid for that but it 's pretty much true .
Sodium Nitrite 's one of the first that comes to mind .
Sodium Nitrite has medical uses but to get the chemical approved for use as a treatment it has to go through a ton of tests .
It is also used as a food preservative .
For use in food the chemical is allowed until it is proven harmful .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium \ _nitrite [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are going to call you paranoid for that but it's pretty much true.
Sodium Nitrite's one of the first that comes to mind.
Sodium Nitrite has medical uses but to get the chemical approved for use as a treatment it has to go through a ton of tests.
It is also used as a food preservative.
For use in food the chemical is allowed until it is proven harmful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium\_nitrite [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302572</id>
	<title>People don't know..... hell YOU don't know!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> No one is forcing patients to take these drugs. Taking these drugs is a risk patients willingly take since, if they have a deadly disease, doing nothing itself has a high mortality rate.</p></div><p>Patients make decisions on the information they're given.  Doctors inevitably give the patients the information that supports the drugs.  After all, they're mainly trained by the pharma companies anyway. (do the research)</p><p>Deadly disease?  Doctors give chemical Rx for everything under the sun... it's mass poison. Look up the side effects.</p><p>The combination of all these Rx and over the counter chemicals.... plus 20 years of use, pretty much equals a crappy health condition.  Factor in the atrocity that people call nutrition these days and you'll completely overwhelm the healthcare system.  Oh wait.... it's already happening. *sigh*</p><p>Physical damage to my body and mental damage to my mind is NOT an acceptable payment for the reduction of symptoms.  Deadly diseases.... possibly, but they're an insignificant minority.... compared to the actual volume of chemicals being consumed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is forcing patients to take these drugs .
Taking these drugs is a risk patients willingly take since , if they have a deadly disease , doing nothing itself has a high mortality rate.Patients make decisions on the information they 're given .
Doctors inevitably give the patients the information that supports the drugs .
After all , they 're mainly trained by the pharma companies anyway .
( do the research ) Deadly disease ?
Doctors give chemical Rx for everything under the sun... it 's mass poison .
Look up the side effects.The combination of all these Rx and over the counter chemicals.... plus 20 years of use , pretty much equals a crappy health condition .
Factor in the atrocity that people call nutrition these days and you 'll completely overwhelm the healthcare system .
Oh wait.... it 's already happening .
* sigh * Physical damage to my body and mental damage to my mind is NOT an acceptable payment for the reduction of symptoms .
Deadly diseases.... possibly , but they 're an insignificant minority.... compared to the actual volume of chemicals being consumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No one is forcing patients to take these drugs.
Taking these drugs is a risk patients willingly take since, if they have a deadly disease, doing nothing itself has a high mortality rate.Patients make decisions on the information they're given.
Doctors inevitably give the patients the information that supports the drugs.
After all, they're mainly trained by the pharma companies anyway.
(do the research)Deadly disease?
Doctors give chemical Rx for everything under the sun... it's mass poison.
Look up the side effects.The combination of all these Rx and over the counter chemicals.... plus 20 years of use, pretty much equals a crappy health condition.
Factor in the atrocity that people call nutrition these days and you'll completely overwhelm the healthcare system.
Oh wait.... it's already happening.
*sigh*Physical damage to my body and mental damage to my mind is NOT an acceptable payment for the reduction of symptoms.
Deadly diseases.... possibly, but they're an insignificant minority.... compared to the actual volume of chemicals being consumed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301770</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds Like A Witch's Brew</title>
	<author>Snarf You</author>
	<datestamp>1267284840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These days we call this stuff 'preservatives' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann's snack cakes.</p></div><p>I think I speak for all of us when I say that kerosene pizza is delicious.  What do YOU want on your Tombstone(tm)?  &lt;evil laugh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days we call this stuff 'preservatives ' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann 's snack cakes.I think I speak for all of us when I say that kerosene pizza is delicious .
What do YOU want on your Tombstone ( tm ) ?
/ &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days we call this stuff 'preservatives' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann's snack cakes.I think I speak for all of us when I say that kerosene pizza is delicious.
What do YOU want on your Tombstone(tm)?
/&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302518</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1267291200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Acetaminophen overdose will harm your liver, although it's reversible at low overdoses (oxymoron), and has a treatment window of many hours even at high doses.  Opioid overdose will stop your breathing.  So... which would you rather overdose on?<br> <br>
There is no maximum dose for opioids, and it's simple to prescribe pure morphine.  Doctors outside of hospice/oncology are extremely hesitant to prescribe doses that would be almost certainly lethal for opioid-naive patients though.  Hence why drug companies add other pain killers at the highest possible doses so as to maximize pain relief.<br> <br>
Also, oxycotin's manufacturer recently lost a lawsuit and was held liable for poor outcomes associated with abusing the drug.  That opened the door for individual doctors to be <a href="http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/drug-toxic\_chemicals/oxycontin\_lawsuit\_legal\_issues.htm" title="freeadvice.com" rel="nofollow">sued</a> [freeadvice.com] as well.  Obviously now there's huge financial incentive for drug companies and doctors ensure that addicts go to the ER with liver failure and live, rather than simply die and be found later, hence acetaminophen being added to opioids.  Plus oxycotin is now ridiculously expensive and other companies aren't about to make a generic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Acetaminophen overdose will harm your liver , although it 's reversible at low overdoses ( oxymoron ) , and has a treatment window of many hours even at high doses .
Opioid overdose will stop your breathing .
So... which would you rather overdose on ?
There is no maximum dose for opioids , and it 's simple to prescribe pure morphine .
Doctors outside of hospice/oncology are extremely hesitant to prescribe doses that would be almost certainly lethal for opioid-naive patients though .
Hence why drug companies add other pain killers at the highest possible doses so as to maximize pain relief .
Also , oxycotin 's manufacturer recently lost a lawsuit and was held liable for poor outcomes associated with abusing the drug .
That opened the door for individual doctors to be sued [ freeadvice.com ] as well .
Obviously now there 's huge financial incentive for drug companies and doctors ensure that addicts go to the ER with liver failure and live , rather than simply die and be found later , hence acetaminophen being added to opioids .
Plus oxycotin is now ridiculously expensive and other companies are n't about to make a generic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acetaminophen overdose will harm your liver, although it's reversible at low overdoses (oxymoron), and has a treatment window of many hours even at high doses.
Opioid overdose will stop your breathing.
So... which would you rather overdose on?
There is no maximum dose for opioids, and it's simple to prescribe pure morphine.
Doctors outside of hospice/oncology are extremely hesitant to prescribe doses that would be almost certainly lethal for opioid-naive patients though.
Hence why drug companies add other pain killers at the highest possible doses so as to maximize pain relief.
Also, oxycotin's manufacturer recently lost a lawsuit and was held liable for poor outcomes associated with abusing the drug.
That opened the door for individual doctors to be sued [freeadvice.com] as well.
Obviously now there's huge financial incentive for drug companies and doctors ensure that addicts go to the ER with liver failure and live, rather than simply die and be found later, hence acetaminophen being added to opioids.
Plus oxycotin is now ridiculously expensive and other companies aren't about to make a generic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301580</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>Newer Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1267283040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or tried to spray Paraquat on pot fields in Mexico knowing full well the pot would be smoked by Americans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or tried to spray Paraquat on pot fields in Mexico knowing full well the pot would be smoked by Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or tried to spray Paraquat on pot fields in Mexico knowing full well the pot would be smoked by Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305040</id>
	<title>Re:Feds still going on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose if their only other choice is severe discomfort or death, it is perfectly ethical to poison any available treatment alternatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose if their only other choice is severe discomfort or death , it is perfectly ethical to poison any available treatment alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose if their only other choice is severe discomfort or death, it is perfectly ethical to poison any available treatment alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</id>
	<title>More Atrocities:  The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The deliberate decision by civil servants and politicians to poison alcohol is just another example in which self-righteous people choose to play god.  Another horrible atrocity sponsored and conducted by Washington is the infamous <a href="http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">Tuskegee syphilis experiment</a> [npr.org] (TSE).  Doctors paid by Washington injected syphilis into unsuspecting indigent Americans and studied the progress of the disease.  When the experiment began, there was no cure for syphilis.  However, after a cure -- i. e., penicillin -- was discovered, the doctors refrained from offering the cure to the subjects of the experiment.  Washington wanted to see what happened to the human body when syphilis is allowed to run its course, ultimately killing the victim.
<p>
If you are reading my words with disbelief, I suggest that you visit the Web link that I have provided.  The TSE was real and was an atrocity committed by the American government against its own citizens.
</p><p>
President Bill Clinton ultimately apologized to the victims and their families.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The deliberate decision by civil servants and politicians to poison alcohol is just another example in which self-righteous people choose to play god .
Another horrible atrocity sponsored and conducted by Washington is the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment [ npr.org ] ( TSE ) .
Doctors paid by Washington injected syphilis into unsuspecting indigent Americans and studied the progress of the disease .
When the experiment began , there was no cure for syphilis .
However , after a cure -- i. e. , penicillin -- was discovered , the doctors refrained from offering the cure to the subjects of the experiment .
Washington wanted to see what happened to the human body when syphilis is allowed to run its course , ultimately killing the victim .
If you are reading my words with disbelief , I suggest that you visit the Web link that I have provided .
The TSE was real and was an atrocity committed by the American government against its own citizens .
President Bill Clinton ultimately apologized to the victims and their families .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deliberate decision by civil servants and politicians to poison alcohol is just another example in which self-righteous people choose to play god.
Another horrible atrocity sponsored and conducted by Washington is the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment [npr.org] (TSE).
Doctors paid by Washington injected syphilis into unsuspecting indigent Americans and studied the progress of the disease.
When the experiment began, there was no cure for syphilis.
However, after a cure -- i. e., penicillin -- was discovered, the doctors refrained from offering the cure to the subjects of the experiment.
Washington wanted to see what happened to the human body when syphilis is allowed to run its course, ultimately killing the victim.
If you are reading my words with disbelief, I suggest that you visit the Web link that I have provided.
The TSE was real and was an atrocity committed by the American government against its own citizens.
President Bill Clinton ultimately apologized to the victims and their families.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>insufflate10mg</author>
	<datestamp>1267283340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The acetaminophen is added for extra pain relief - and it does help.  15mg Oxycodone w/ NO-APAP, 30mg, 40mg, 60mg, and 80mg oxycodone-only pills are more popular than the ones with APAP (Tylenol/Acetaminophen).  Sure, lower-strength Percocet and Vicodin have acetaminophen in them, but it is not to prevent abuse.  Put a whole bottle of Percocet/Vicodin in a cold gallon of water, refrigerate it for several hours, filter out the result, throw away what the filter catches, allow the remaining liquid to evaporate slowly.  After the liquid evaporates off of a pan, there will be crystallized particles.  Scrape it up, cut out doses, and snort it -- it will be approximately 85-90\% the total amount of opiates in the original pills.  The acetaminophen you imply is used for malicious purposes will be laying on a coffee filter in the trash.  <br> <br>The acetaminophen is not to poison a hard abuser; in fact, most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The acetaminophen is added for extra pain relief - and it does help .
15mg Oxycodone w/ NO-APAP , 30mg , 40mg , 60mg , and 80mg oxycodone-only pills are more popular than the ones with APAP ( Tylenol/Acetaminophen ) .
Sure , lower-strength Percocet and Vicodin have acetaminophen in them , but it is not to prevent abuse .
Put a whole bottle of Percocet/Vicodin in a cold gallon of water , refrigerate it for several hours , filter out the result , throw away what the filter catches , allow the remaining liquid to evaporate slowly .
After the liquid evaporates off of a pan , there will be crystallized particles .
Scrape it up , cut out doses , and snort it -- it will be approximately 85-90 \ % the total amount of opiates in the original pills .
The acetaminophen you imply is used for malicious purposes will be laying on a coffee filter in the trash .
The acetaminophen is not to poison a hard abuser ; in fact , most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The acetaminophen is added for extra pain relief - and it does help.
15mg Oxycodone w/ NO-APAP, 30mg, 40mg, 60mg, and 80mg oxycodone-only pills are more popular than the ones with APAP (Tylenol/Acetaminophen).
Sure, lower-strength Percocet and Vicodin have acetaminophen in them, but it is not to prevent abuse.
Put a whole bottle of Percocet/Vicodin in a cold gallon of water, refrigerate it for several hours, filter out the result, throw away what the filter catches, allow the remaining liquid to evaporate slowly.
After the liquid evaporates off of a pan, there will be crystallized particles.
Scrape it up, cut out doses, and snort it -- it will be approximately 85-90\% the total amount of opiates in the original pills.
The acetaminophen you imply is used for malicious purposes will be laying on a coffee filter in the trash.
The acetaminophen is not to poison a hard abuser; in fact, most doctors would prefer to prescribe the opiate-only preparations due to the toxicity of APAP at high dosages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31309790</id>
	<title>Bad Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267359360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summary is inaccurate in two respects:<br>1.The 18th Amendment did not ban the consumption of alcohol, just the production, sale, and transportation of it.<br>2.According to the article, the industrial alcohol stolen by crime syndicates was grain (ethyl) alcohol, not methyl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary is inaccurate in two respects : 1.The 18th Amendment did not ban the consumption of alcohol , just the production , sale , and transportation of it.2.According to the article , the industrial alcohol stolen by crime syndicates was grain ( ethyl ) alcohol , not methyl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary is inaccurate in two respects:1.The 18th Amendment did not ban the consumption of alcohol, just the production, sale, and transportation of it.2.According to the article, the industrial alcohol stolen by crime syndicates was grain (ethyl) alcohol, not methyl.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303566</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this the government's fault?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pretentious fool.</p><p>If someone amended the Constitution to make breathing a crime, would that make it Constitutional?</p><p>Of course not.  And for the same reason Prohibition was an absurdity inconsistent with Freedom and the Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pretentious fool.If someone amended the Constitution to make breathing a crime , would that make it Constitutional ? Of course not .
And for the same reason Prohibition was an absurdity inconsistent with Freedom and the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pretentious fool.If someone amended the Constitution to make breathing a crime, would that make it Constitutional?Of course not.
And for the same reason Prohibition was an absurdity inconsistent with Freedom and the Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301376</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up the MK ULTRA project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up the MK ULTRA project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up the MK ULTRA project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301734</id>
	<title>Re:Listen you Dolts</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267284240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The anti-freeze is/was intrinsically toxic. The ethylene glycol is/was the active ingredient. There has been a significant shift to less toxic formulations in the last few years since even though the container was clearly marked poison and was never meant for consumption, people nevertheless died from it.</p><p>In denatured alcohol, the ethanol is the active ingredient. The government mandates the addition of a much more toxic adulterant specifically to make it more harmful if consumed. People DO die or go blind from the poisons deliberately added to make the product more dangerous.</p><p>How about a more sensible tax structure instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The anti-freeze is/was intrinsically toxic .
The ethylene glycol is/was the active ingredient .
There has been a significant shift to less toxic formulations in the last few years since even though the container was clearly marked poison and was never meant for consumption , people nevertheless died from it.In denatured alcohol , the ethanol is the active ingredient .
The government mandates the addition of a much more toxic adulterant specifically to make it more harmful if consumed .
People DO die or go blind from the poisons deliberately added to make the product more dangerous.How about a more sensible tax structure instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The anti-freeze is/was intrinsically toxic.
The ethylene glycol is/was the active ingredient.
There has been a significant shift to less toxic formulations in the last few years since even though the container was clearly marked poison and was never meant for consumption, people nevertheless died from it.In denatured alcohol, the ethanol is the active ingredient.
The government mandates the addition of a much more toxic adulterant specifically to make it more harmful if consumed.
People DO die or go blind from the poisons deliberately added to make the product more dangerous.How about a more sensible tax structure instead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305718</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, damn.</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1267372560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what's going to happen to all those "at least we aren't killing our own people" arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States?</p></div><p>This is about the war on recreational drugs. You could have went with Afghanistan, where the poppies grow, that would have been appropriate.<br>Iraq is about oil reserves, try to keep up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's going to happen to all those " at least we are n't killing our own people " arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States ? This is about the war on recreational drugs .
You could have went with Afghanistan , where the poppies grow , that would have been appropriate.Iraq is about oil reserves , try to keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's going to happen to all those "at least we aren't killing our own people" arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States?This is about the war on recreational drugs.
You could have went with Afghanistan, where the poppies grow, that would have been appropriate.Iraq is about oil reserves, try to keep up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302150</id>
	<title>Re:So who is after your rights?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh WRONG.  Yes Theodore Roosevelt was in favor of Prohibition, and congress pass it in 1917 it did not become an actual Amendment until 1920 after State ratification.  The congress was split at the time with the Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate.  Prohibition was part of the Progressive Movement and spanned BOTH parties.</p><p>Applying modern splits in political philosophy to this times is wholesale wrong and in accurate.</p><p>A simple visit to Wikipedia before posting would have you alleviated your ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh WRONG .
Yes Theodore Roosevelt was in favor of Prohibition , and congress pass it in 1917 it did not become an actual Amendment until 1920 after State ratification .
The congress was split at the time with the Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate .
Prohibition was part of the Progressive Movement and spanned BOTH parties.Applying modern splits in political philosophy to this times is wholesale wrong and in accurate.A simple visit to Wikipedia before posting would have you alleviated your ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh WRONG.
Yes Theodore Roosevelt was in favor of Prohibition, and congress pass it in 1917 it did not become an actual Amendment until 1920 after State ratification.
The congress was split at the time with the Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate.
Prohibition was part of the Progressive Movement and spanned BOTH parties.Applying modern splits in political philosophy to this times is wholesale wrong and in accurate.A simple visit to Wikipedia before posting would have you alleviated your ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</id>
	<title>Ah yes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267279140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very much like the US still poisons its opiates by adding acetaminophen to them to ensure that they cannot be taken in very high doses? Ah, the war on drugs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very much like the US still poisons its opiates by adding acetaminophen to them to ensure that they can not be taken in very high doses ?
Ah , the war on drugs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very much like the US still poisons its opiates by adding acetaminophen to them to ensure that they cannot be taken in very high doses?
Ah, the war on drugs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301758</id>
	<title>Re:Listen you Dolts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of Anti-freeze, there are some concerns about it.  Some places are thinking of mandating propylene glycol instead of Ethylene, others require the addition of an embitterant to make animals and children less likely to drink it, or for adults to be less likely to be poisoned by it.</p><p>They do the same thing with compressed air.   Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of Anti-freeze , there are some concerns about it .
Some places are thinking of mandating propylene glycol instead of Ethylene , others require the addition of an embitterant to make animals and children less likely to drink it , or for adults to be less likely to be poisoned by it.They do the same thing with compressed air .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of Anti-freeze, there are some concerns about it.
Some places are thinking of mandating propylene glycol instead of Ethylene, others require the addition of an embitterant to make animals and children less likely to drink it, or for adults to be less likely to be poisoned by it.They do the same thing with compressed air.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31320146</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>Gabrosin</author>
	<datestamp>1267474140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Christianity is defined by its principles, NOT its "followers".  The logical distinction between the fallacy you presented and the current case is that being a Scotsman is an intrinsic property of a human being that cannot be changed, while being a Christian is an individual's elective choice and can be changed.  (Yes, I'm defining Scotsman as one who was born a Scot, not allowing for the possibility of emigration from one country to another, but that's the premise on which the fallacy is built.)</p><p>You can definitely make the argument that someone who claims to be a Christian but doesn't adhere to the tenets of Christianity is not a Christian, just as you can make the argument that someone who claims to be a communist but doesn't adhere to the tenets of communism is not a communist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Christianity is defined by its principles , NOT its " followers " .
The logical distinction between the fallacy you presented and the current case is that being a Scotsman is an intrinsic property of a human being that can not be changed , while being a Christian is an individual 's elective choice and can be changed .
( Yes , I 'm defining Scotsman as one who was born a Scot , not allowing for the possibility of emigration from one country to another , but that 's the premise on which the fallacy is built .
) You can definitely make the argument that someone who claims to be a Christian but does n't adhere to the tenets of Christianity is not a Christian , just as you can make the argument that someone who claims to be a communist but does n't adhere to the tenets of communism is not a communist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Christianity is defined by its principles, NOT its "followers".
The logical distinction between the fallacy you presented and the current case is that being a Scotsman is an intrinsic property of a human being that cannot be changed, while being a Christian is an individual's elective choice and can be changed.
(Yes, I'm defining Scotsman as one who was born a Scot, not allowing for the possibility of emigration from one country to another, but that's the premise on which the fallacy is built.
)You can definitely make the argument that someone who claims to be a Christian but doesn't adhere to the tenets of Christianity is not a Christian, just as you can make the argument that someone who claims to be a communist but doesn't adhere to the tenets of communism is not a communist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301214</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1267280340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, right? It's like, I tell those damn kids to stay off my lawn, even put a sign up...is it really my fault if they step on a landmine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , right ?
It 's like , I tell those damn kids to stay off my lawn , even put a sign up...is it really my fault if they step on a landmine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, right?
It's like, I tell those damn kids to stay off my lawn, even put a sign up...is it really my fault if they step on a landmine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301620</id>
	<title>Re:So who is after your rights?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267283400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to burst your bubble, but presidents have nothing to do with Constitutional amendments.  It was passed by the requisite number of states.  This was a progressive (socialist/fascist/communist/liberal) idea.  You know, the Obama/Hillary/Pelosi/Reid (hell, most democrats)  types of their time.  Unfortunately, progressivism had it's claws in both parties, but is mostly gone from the Republican party.  This comment is going to get modded to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to burst your bubble , but presidents have nothing to do with Constitutional amendments .
It was passed by the requisite number of states .
This was a progressive ( socialist/fascist/communist/liberal ) idea .
You know , the Obama/Hillary/Pelosi/Reid ( hell , most democrats ) types of their time .
Unfortunately , progressivism had it 's claws in both parties , but is mostly gone from the Republican party .
This comment is going to get modded to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to burst your bubble, but presidents have nothing to do with Constitutional amendments.
It was passed by the requisite number of states.
This was a progressive (socialist/fascist/communist/liberal) idea.
You know, the Obama/Hillary/Pelosi/Reid (hell, most democrats)  types of their time.
Unfortunately, progressivism had it's claws in both parties, but is mostly gone from the Republican party.
This comment is going to get modded to hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301238</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds Like A Witch's Brew</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1267280460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These days we call this stuff 'preservatives' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann's snack cakes.</p></div></blockquote><p>That is some nasty hyperbole you've got there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days we call this stuff 'preservatives ' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann 's snack cakes.That is some nasty hyperbole you 've got there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days we call this stuff 'preservatives' and add them to everything from frozen pizza to Entenmann's snack cakes.That is some nasty hyperbole you've got there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301566</id>
	<title>Re:It's still true today</title>
	<author>careysub</author>
	<datestamp>1267282920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As others above have noted, this program continues today.  'Denatured' alcohol is just poisoned alcohol.  This is a legal mandate, and was kept on after prohibition in order to support high alcohol taxes.</p><p>Ethanol is very cheap to produce and is used by industry as a solvent or antiseptic.  The main additive is methanol, which causes blindless before it kills you -- classy.</p></div><p>True, but the situation changes when you have a legal supply of drinking alcohol and bootlegging has essentially vanished as a result. At the time they KNEW they were causing the poisoning of tens of thousands of people because this stuff was being diverted to the black market and relabeled. In addition - they now also add one of the bitterest compounds known - denatonium benzoate (named in honor of its principle use) so that it tastes really, really awful even in tiny amounts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As others above have noted , this program continues today .
'Denatured ' alcohol is just poisoned alcohol .
This is a legal mandate , and was kept on after prohibition in order to support high alcohol taxes.Ethanol is very cheap to produce and is used by industry as a solvent or antiseptic .
The main additive is methanol , which causes blindless before it kills you -- classy.True , but the situation changes when you have a legal supply of drinking alcohol and bootlegging has essentially vanished as a result .
At the time they KNEW they were causing the poisoning of tens of thousands of people because this stuff was being diverted to the black market and relabeled .
In addition - they now also add one of the bitterest compounds known - denatonium benzoate ( named in honor of its principle use ) so that it tastes really , really awful even in tiny amounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others above have noted, this program continues today.
'Denatured' alcohol is just poisoned alcohol.
This is a legal mandate, and was kept on after prohibition in order to support high alcohol taxes.Ethanol is very cheap to produce and is used by industry as a solvent or antiseptic.
The main additive is methanol, which causes blindless before it kills you -- classy.True, but the situation changes when you have a legal supply of drinking alcohol and bootlegging has essentially vanished as a result.
At the time they KNEW they were causing the poisoning of tens of thousands of people because this stuff was being diverted to the black market and relabeled.
In addition - they now also add one of the bitterest compounds known - denatonium benzoate (named in honor of its principle use) so that it tastes really, really awful even in tiny amounts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302840</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267294020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>all i'm asking is that while y'all busy demonizing the freedom destruction of government and religion, that you don't forget the most successful freedom destroyer of them all: drugs</p></div><p>You mean Prohibition.<br>Do your research and you'll see that it's the number one destroyer in our nation.  People, society and the environment are all being slaughtered in the name of "Saving the children".</p><p>Let's stop killing the damn children and remove the harm that prohibition is causing.</p><p>Were it up to me.... we'd fix the constitution by removing the additional powers that were granted to congress in the 30's. FDR and that group managed to upset the checks and balances and the DEA is only one problem that's come about because of it.</p><p>Do a search for "Archive Constitution Class" and add to your "Questions you never thought you should be asking" list.</p><p>Educate Yourself! Then Educated Your Neighbor!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all i 'm asking is that while y'all busy demonizing the freedom destruction of government and religion , that you do n't forget the most successful freedom destroyer of them all : drugsYou mean Prohibition.Do your research and you 'll see that it 's the number one destroyer in our nation .
People , society and the environment are all being slaughtered in the name of " Saving the children " .Let 's stop killing the damn children and remove the harm that prohibition is causing.Were it up to me.... we 'd fix the constitution by removing the additional powers that were granted to congress in the 30 's .
FDR and that group managed to upset the checks and balances and the DEA is only one problem that 's come about because of it.Do a search for " Archive Constitution Class " and add to your " Questions you never thought you should be asking " list.Educate Yourself !
Then Educated Your Neighbor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all i'm asking is that while y'all busy demonizing the freedom destruction of government and religion, that you don't forget the most successful freedom destroyer of them all: drugsYou mean Prohibition.Do your research and you'll see that it's the number one destroyer in our nation.
People, society and the environment are all being slaughtered in the name of "Saving the children".Let's stop killing the damn children and remove the harm that prohibition is causing.Were it up to me.... we'd fix the constitution by removing the additional powers that were granted to congress in the 30's.
FDR and that group managed to upset the checks and balances and the DEA is only one problem that's come about because of it.Do a search for "Archive Constitution Class" and add to your "Questions you never thought you should be asking" list.Educate Yourself!
Then Educated Your Neighbor!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305342</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1267369920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could it be that blowjobs are not good for you and that is why they tried to get you to not perform that act? I mean, you were giving a trigger finger but that doesn't mean you should shoot everyone... I think that sex outside of reproduction and love is negative in that you lose focus of what is important, and trying to get Patti O'Conner over to the darkside is not one of those things...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be that blowjobs are not good for you and that is why they tried to get you to not perform that act ?
I mean , you were giving a trigger finger but that does n't mean you should shoot everyone... I think that sex outside of reproduction and love is negative in that you lose focus of what is important , and trying to get Patti O'Conner over to the darkside is not one of those things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be that blowjobs are not good for you and that is why they tried to get you to not perform that act?
I mean, you were giving a trigger finger but that doesn't mean you should shoot everyone... I think that sex outside of reproduction and love is negative in that you lose focus of what is important, and trying to get Patti O'Conner over to the darkside is not one of those things...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301164</id>
	<title>A Different War on Drugs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds similar to the "War on Drugs" - bound to fail, waste a lot of money and kill a heap of people in the process.   What a waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds similar to the " War on Drugs " - bound to fail , waste a lot of money and kill a heap of people in the process .
What a waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds similar to the "War on Drugs" - bound to fail, waste a lot of money and kill a heap of people in the process.
What a waste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302878</id>
	<title>Re:while we're railing against freedom destruction</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1267294320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there is no greater destruction of freedom in the history of mankind than drug addiction

</p><p>you take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes from</p></div><p>Its my mind and I'll contemplate whatever I damned well please with it. That's the essence of freedom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no greater destruction of freedom in the history of mankind than drug addiction you take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes fromIts my mind and I 'll contemplate whatever I damned well please with it .
That 's the essence of freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no greater destruction of freedom in the history of mankind than drug addiction

you take a mind that contemplates history or philosophy or art and replace it with one that is only concerned where its next fix comes fromIts my mind and I'll contemplate whatever I damned well please with it.
That's the essence of freedom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301258</id>
	<title>Re:Feds still going on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several hundred thousand die per year? So it's half as bad as cancer or heart disease? I find that very hard to believe. And federally mandated poisoning? No one is forcing patients to take these drugs. Taking these drugs is a risk patients willingly take since, if they have a deadly disease, doing nothing itself has a high mortality rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several hundred thousand die per year ?
So it 's half as bad as cancer or heart disease ?
I find that very hard to believe .
And federally mandated poisoning ?
No one is forcing patients to take these drugs .
Taking these drugs is a risk patients willingly take since , if they have a deadly disease , doing nothing itself has a high mortality rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several hundred thousand die per year?
So it's half as bad as cancer or heart disease?
I find that very hard to believe.
And federally mandated poisoning?
No one is forcing patients to take these drugs.
Taking these drugs is a risk patients willingly take since, if they have a deadly disease, doing nothing itself has a high mortality rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301312</id>
	<title>The Real Danger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the Government's unscrupulous poisoning of the feeble minded is an outrage, and a threat to innocent drinkers of antifreeze throughout the nation. THEY maintain that their hands are clean by pointing out that the containers all bear clear labels of "poison" upon them, but that is merely a clever cover-up for their nefarious plans.</p><p>But the truly dangerous conspiracy, the greatest threat that few date to speak about, are the horrors lurking behind the innocuously named hydrogn dioxide. I urge you to look into the threat that substance presents, despite the Government's outrageous self-serving assurance about how harmless it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the Government 's unscrupulous poisoning of the feeble minded is an outrage , and a threat to innocent drinkers of antifreeze throughout the nation .
THEY maintain that their hands are clean by pointing out that the containers all bear clear labels of " poison " upon them , but that is merely a clever cover-up for their nefarious plans.But the truly dangerous conspiracy , the greatest threat that few date to speak about , are the horrors lurking behind the innocuously named hydrogn dioxide .
I urge you to look into the threat that substance presents , despite the Government 's outrageous self-serving assurance about how harmless it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the Government's unscrupulous poisoning of the feeble minded is an outrage, and a threat to innocent drinkers of antifreeze throughout the nation.
THEY maintain that their hands are clean by pointing out that the containers all bear clear labels of "poison" upon them, but that is merely a clever cover-up for their nefarious plans.But the truly dangerous conspiracy, the greatest threat that few date to speak about, are the horrors lurking behind the innocuously named hydrogn dioxide.
I urge you to look into the threat that substance presents, despite the Government's outrageous self-serving assurance about how harmless it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301188</id>
	<title>Prohibition cripples our Nation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."</p><p>Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President.<br>Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives (http://deoxy.org/prohib1.htm)</p><p>End prohibition.... support your local cannabis organization that is championing the removal of restrictions on cannabis.</p><p>Educate Yourself.... then Educate Your Neighbor!<br>(http://www.archive.org/details/Michael\_Badnarik)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance .
It is a species of intemperance within itself , for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man 's appetite by legislation , and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes .
A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded .
" Abraham Lincoln ( 1809-65 ) , U.S. President.Speech , 18 Dec. 1840 , to Illinois House of Representatives ( http : //deoxy.org/prohib1.htm ) End prohibition.... support your local cannabis organization that is championing the removal of restrictions on cannabis.Educate Yourself.... then Educate Your Neighbor !
( http : //www.archive.org/details/Michael \ _Badnarik )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance.
It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.
A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
"Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President.Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives (http://deoxy.org/prohib1.htm)End prohibition.... support your local cannabis organization that is championing the removal of restrictions on cannabis.Educate Yourself.... then Educate Your Neighbor!
(http://www.archive.org/details/Michael\_Badnarik)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302046</id>
	<title>Why is this the government's fault?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1267287120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Poisonous alcohol still kills--16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes--but that's due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order."</p><p>Wait, so unscrupulous businessmen making their own deadly booze to avoid taxes is the fault of 'unscrupulous businessmen', but unscrupulous businessment stealing industrial alchohol which I'm sure was labelled as such, and most likely labelled as poisonous, and then presumably putting it into other bottles (and possibly mixing it with other stuff to make it 'palatable' and/or dillute it for increased profit) somehow is NOT due to unscrupulous businessmen.</p><p>Sounds to me like the government didn't pour this stuff down people's gullets or trick them into drinking it. It sounds to me EXACTLY like 'unscrupulous businessmen' in the USA in the 1920's did something they knew would poison people, just to make a quick buck. I don't at all blame the government, as long as the original poisoned alchohol supplies were labelled as such. After that, it's not the goverment's fault if someone serves poison to other people. You wouldn't blame the government if ANY OTHER industrial chemical ended up in people's drinks because of criminals, would you?</p><p>The article author, with that statement, sure makes herself look kind of foolish, in this article. I particularly liked this quote: "I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did you?" I kept saying to friends, family members, colleagues."</p><p>They didn't poison *people*. They 'poisoned' an industrial chemical that wasn't being manufactured, sold, or labelled for human consumption. Bootleggers poisoned people.</p><p>I want to make it clear I don't blame the poisoning victims in this. I squarly blame the bootleggers that sold them the poisoned drinks.</p><p>As for prohibition, no, I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't bring back that ammendment, but the government is *supposed* to follow the Constitution, and it was legally ammended by the Congress and the States, so the goverment is bound to uphold the Constitution. Poisoning the industrial alchohol seems a *perfectly* reasonable step in that situation, so long as everyone knows it has been poisoned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Poisonous alcohol still kills--16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia , where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes--but that 's due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order .
" Wait , so unscrupulous businessmen making their own deadly booze to avoid taxes is the fault of 'unscrupulous businessmen ' , but unscrupulous businessment stealing industrial alchohol which I 'm sure was labelled as such , and most likely labelled as poisonous , and then presumably putting it into other bottles ( and possibly mixing it with other stuff to make it 'palatable ' and/or dillute it for increased profit ) somehow is NOT due to unscrupulous businessmen.Sounds to me like the government did n't pour this stuff down people 's gullets or trick them into drinking it .
It sounds to me EXACTLY like 'unscrupulous businessmen ' in the USA in the 1920 's did something they knew would poison people , just to make a quick buck .
I do n't at all blame the government , as long as the original poisoned alchohol supplies were labelled as such .
After that , it 's not the goverment 's fault if someone serves poison to other people .
You would n't blame the government if ANY OTHER industrial chemical ended up in people 's drinks because of criminals , would you ? The article author , with that statement , sure makes herself look kind of foolish , in this article .
I particularly liked this quote : " I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition , did you ?
" I kept saying to friends , family members , colleagues .
" They did n't poison * people * .
They 'poisoned ' an industrial chemical that was n't being manufactured , sold , or labelled for human consumption .
Bootleggers poisoned people.I want to make it clear I do n't blame the poisoning victims in this .
I squarly blame the bootleggers that sold them the poisoned drinks.As for prohibition , no , I do n't agree with it , and I would n't bring back that ammendment , but the government is * supposed * to follow the Constitution , and it was legally ammended by the Congress and the States , so the goverment is bound to uphold the Constitution .
Poisoning the industrial alchohol seems a * perfectly * reasonable step in that situation , so long as everyone knows it has been poisoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Poisonous alcohol still kills--16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes--but that's due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.
"Wait, so unscrupulous businessmen making their own deadly booze to avoid taxes is the fault of 'unscrupulous businessmen', but unscrupulous businessment stealing industrial alchohol which I'm sure was labelled as such, and most likely labelled as poisonous, and then presumably putting it into other bottles (and possibly mixing it with other stuff to make it 'palatable' and/or dillute it for increased profit) somehow is NOT due to unscrupulous businessmen.Sounds to me like the government didn't pour this stuff down people's gullets or trick them into drinking it.
It sounds to me EXACTLY like 'unscrupulous businessmen' in the USA in the 1920's did something they knew would poison people, just to make a quick buck.
I don't at all blame the government, as long as the original poisoned alchohol supplies were labelled as such.
After that, it's not the goverment's fault if someone serves poison to other people.
You wouldn't blame the government if ANY OTHER industrial chemical ended up in people's drinks because of criminals, would you?The article author, with that statement, sure makes herself look kind of foolish, in this article.
I particularly liked this quote: "I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did you?
" I kept saying to friends, family members, colleagues.
"They didn't poison *people*.
They 'poisoned' an industrial chemical that wasn't being manufactured, sold, or labelled for human consumption.
Bootleggers poisoned people.I want to make it clear I don't blame the poisoning victims in this.
I squarly blame the bootleggers that sold them the poisoned drinks.As for prohibition, no, I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't bring back that ammendment, but the government is *supposed* to follow the Constitution, and it was legally ammended by the Congress and the States, so the goverment is bound to uphold the Constitution.
Poisoning the industrial alchohol seems a *perfectly* reasonable step in that situation, so long as everyone knows it has been poisoned.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301348</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1267281180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I liked the idea of doping prescription narcotics with pepper so that the abusers couldn't abuse it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked the idea of doping prescription narcotics with pepper so that the abusers could n't abuse it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked the idea of doping prescription narcotics with pepper so that the abusers couldn't abuse it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301786</id>
	<title>Re:So who is after your rights?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, both parties willingly remove rights from their people if it means that they can get elected. Some of our "elected" leaders believe we shouldn't have the right to the fruits of our labor, while the others believe we shouldn't have the right to our bodies. Between the two of them they're slowly stripping us of everything except our dignity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , both parties willingly remove rights from their people if it means that they can get elected .
Some of our " elected " leaders believe we should n't have the right to the fruits of our labor , while the others believe we should n't have the right to our bodies .
Between the two of them they 're slowly stripping us of everything except our dignity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, both parties willingly remove rights from their people if it means that they can get elected.
Some of our "elected" leaders believe we shouldn't have the right to the fruits of our labor, while the others believe we shouldn't have the right to our bodies.
Between the two of them they're slowly stripping us of everything except our dignity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301850</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youre absolutly right, i want someone looking at how much its gonna cost them before they sent me away to die.. you know the type of people with share holders.. they have more to gain the the govmint.. i choose lesser of two evils</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youre absolutly right , i want someone looking at how much its gon na cost them before they sent me away to die.. you know the type of people with share holders.. they have more to gain the the govmint.. i choose lesser of two evils</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youre absolutly right, i want someone looking at how much its gonna cost them before they sent me away to die.. you know the type of people with share holders.. they have more to gain the the govmint.. i choose lesser of two evils</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31318074</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1267466280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's not like they were poisoning beer being sold off the shelf, they were adding poisons to stuff that people already should not have been drinking even before prohibition.</i> </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because they knew people would be drinking it.  Nice authoritarian streak you got there.</p><p>We have a word for that sort of behavior, murder.  In fact, we've a more precise word when the target group is ethnic not behavioral, genocide.  I'd say that word fits this case fairly well overall though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like they were poisoning beer being sold off the shelf , they were adding poisons to stuff that people already should not have been drinking even before prohibition .
... because they knew people would be drinking it .
Nice authoritarian streak you got there.We have a word for that sort of behavior , murder .
In fact , we 've a more precise word when the target group is ethnic not behavioral , genocide .
I 'd say that word fits this case fairly well overall though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like they were poisoning beer being sold off the shelf, they were adding poisons to stuff that people already should not have been drinking even before prohibition.
... because they knew people would be drinking it.
Nice authoritarian streak you got there.We have a word for that sort of behavior, murder.
In fact, we've a more precise word when the target group is ethnic not behavioral, genocide.
I'd say that word fits this case fairly well overall though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31308558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305662</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1267372200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism.</p><p>You might want to review the history of Rome circa 500 to 1500 A.D., where the Christian church imposed a whole series of laws about what music could or could not be played, who could marry and who could not, how women should dress, why kind of sex was permissible (for procreation only), and so on.  While the Christian was never as tyrannical as he Islamic church in Iran, it was still authoritarian.</p><p>Just as Galileo. Or the victims of the Spanish Inquisition.  And don't say "Rome was not Christian" because it very clearly WAS the symbol and the authority for Christendom for over 1000 years.  The Pope filled the vacuum that was left behind after the Roman Emperor no longer existed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; As far as I can tell , christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism.You might want to review the history of Rome circa 500 to 1500 A.D. , where the Christian church imposed a whole series of laws about what music could or could not be played , who could marry and who could not , how women should dress , why kind of sex was permissible ( for procreation only ) , and so on .
While the Christian was never as tyrannical as he Islamic church in Iran , it was still authoritarian.Just as Galileo .
Or the victims of the Spanish Inquisition .
And do n't say " Rome was not Christian " because it very clearly WAS the symbol and the authority for Christendom for over 1000 years .
The Pope filled the vacuum that was left behind after the Roman Emperor no longer existed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism.You might want to review the history of Rome circa 500 to 1500 A.D., where the Christian church imposed a whole series of laws about what music could or could not be played, who could marry and who could not, how women should dress, why kind of sex was permissible (for procreation only), and so on.
While the Christian was never as tyrannical as he Islamic church in Iran, it was still authoritarian.Just as Galileo.
Or the victims of the Spanish Inquisition.
And don't say "Rome was not Christian" because it very clearly WAS the symbol and the authority for Christendom for over 1000 years.
The Pope filled the vacuum that was left behind after the Roman Emperor no longer existed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301538</id>
	<title>Re:Listen you Dolts</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1267282740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>production of alcohol fit for human consumption costs about $0.06 per liter in raw materials and energy. Triple that with labor, packaging and transport. Flavor, marketing, controls, it all won't get the costs above $1/bottle. It's all about taxes...</p><p>As for poisoning alcohol, I don't know about the US but in Europe it's poisoned with chemicals that induce strong nausea and vomiting but no lasting effects. They will definitely make you regret drinking it, but won't hurt you in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>production of alcohol fit for human consumption costs about $ 0.06 per liter in raw materials and energy .
Triple that with labor , packaging and transport .
Flavor , marketing , controls , it all wo n't get the costs above $ 1/bottle .
It 's all about taxes...As for poisoning alcohol , I do n't know about the US but in Europe it 's poisoned with chemicals that induce strong nausea and vomiting but no lasting effects .
They will definitely make you regret drinking it , but wo n't hurt you in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>production of alcohol fit for human consumption costs about $0.06 per liter in raw materials and energy.
Triple that with labor, packaging and transport.
Flavor, marketing, controls, it all won't get the costs above $1/bottle.
It's all about taxes...As for poisoning alcohol, I don't know about the US but in Europe it's poisoned with chemicals that induce strong nausea and vomiting but no lasting effects.
They will definitely make you regret drinking it, but won't hurt you in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301802</id>
	<title>Scope, anyone?</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1267285260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't even mouthwash that contains alcohol deliberately made unsafe to drink?  This article seems to be mostly a big kdawson scare and not really news in any meaningful sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't even mouthwash that contains alcohol deliberately made unsafe to drink ?
This article seems to be mostly a big kdawson scare and not really news in any meaningful sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't even mouthwash that contains alcohol deliberately made unsafe to drink?
This article seems to be mostly a big kdawson scare and not really news in any meaningful sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301602</id>
	<title>We already have death panels, you fucking idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267283220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're called 'insurance companies'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're called 'insurance companies' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're called 'insurance companies'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302514</id>
	<title>Re:Feds still going on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet pharmaceutical patents is a case where patents should be enforced more and longer.  It takes millions of dollars to research new drugs, by the time it's done with the research phase, passes FDA testing, the drug company only has a few years to actually profit off their their research before the patent expires.  Is this good or bad? You decide...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet pharmaceutical patents is a case where patents should be enforced more and longer .
It takes millions of dollars to research new drugs , by the time it 's done with the research phase , passes FDA testing , the drug company only has a few years to actually profit off their their research before the patent expires .
Is this good or bad ?
You decide.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet pharmaceutical patents is a case where patents should be enforced more and longer.
It takes millions of dollars to research new drugs, by the time it's done with the research phase, passes FDA testing, the drug company only has a few years to actually profit off their their research before the patent expires.
Is this good or bad?
You decide...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302266</id>
	<title>Not progressive by any reasonable definition...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1267289280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hate to burst your bubble, but presidents have nothing to do with Constitutional amendments</p></div><p>
You are correct on that part.  However, prohibition did not actually prohibit anything until the passage of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Volstead Act</a> [wikipedia.org] which actually <i>defined</i> what (product) was being prohibited.  And that act was vetoed by Wilson.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This was a progressive (socialist/fascist/communist/liberal) idea</p></div><p>
If you group socialism, fascism, communism, and liberalism all under the same umbrella, you need to actually read up on those four very different philosophical structures.  There are profound differences between those four ideals, both in theory and in application.<br> <br>
However equally important is to realize that there was nothing "progressive" about repealing the sale of "intoxicating beverages".  Indeed, it would be better viewed as a regressive act, as it was in no way empowering for the lower socio-economic classes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, progressivism had it's claws in both parties, but is mostly gone from the Republican party.</p></div><p>
You have a strange view of "progressivism".  It is no small wonder you posted as an anonymous coward.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This comment is going to get modded to hell.</p></div><p>
Being as there is no moderation for "factually inaccurate", you are safe from reasonable moderation.  Although some may consider your post to be far enough removed from reason to be trolling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to burst your bubble , but presidents have nothing to do with Constitutional amendments You are correct on that part .
However , prohibition did not actually prohibit anything until the passage of the Volstead Act [ wikipedia.org ] which actually defined what ( product ) was being prohibited .
And that act was vetoed by Wilson.This was a progressive ( socialist/fascist/communist/liberal ) idea If you group socialism , fascism , communism , and liberalism all under the same umbrella , you need to actually read up on those four very different philosophical structures .
There are profound differences between those four ideals , both in theory and in application .
However equally important is to realize that there was nothing " progressive " about repealing the sale of " intoxicating beverages " .
Indeed , it would be better viewed as a regressive act , as it was in no way empowering for the lower socio-economic classes.Unfortunately , progressivism had it 's claws in both parties , but is mostly gone from the Republican party .
You have a strange view of " progressivism " .
It is no small wonder you posted as an anonymous coward.This comment is going to get modded to hell .
Being as there is no moderation for " factually inaccurate " , you are safe from reasonable moderation .
Although some may consider your post to be far enough removed from reason to be trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to burst your bubble, but presidents have nothing to do with Constitutional amendments
You are correct on that part.
However, prohibition did not actually prohibit anything until the passage of the Volstead Act [wikipedia.org] which actually defined what (product) was being prohibited.
And that act was vetoed by Wilson.This was a progressive (socialist/fascist/communist/liberal) idea
If you group socialism, fascism, communism, and liberalism all under the same umbrella, you need to actually read up on those four very different philosophical structures.
There are profound differences between those four ideals, both in theory and in application.
However equally important is to realize that there was nothing "progressive" about repealing the sale of "intoxicating beverages".
Indeed, it would be better viewed as a regressive act, as it was in no way empowering for the lower socio-economic classes.Unfortunately, progressivism had it's claws in both parties, but is mostly gone from the Republican party.
You have a strange view of "progressivism".
It is no small wonder you posted as an anonymous coward.This comment is going to get modded to hell.
Being as there is no moderation for "factually inaccurate", you are safe from reasonable moderation.
Although some may consider your post to be far enough removed from reason to be trolling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303654</id>
	<title>This still occurs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.ecosmartfire.com/en/about-the-fireplaces/what-is-the-fuel</p><p>Ethanol is denatured before it leaves the factory because it is so muchcheaper than store alcohol.  Watch the modern marvels corn episode for details.  (industrial alcohol is still denatured)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ecosmartfire.com/en/about-the-fireplaces/what-is-the-fuelEthanol is denatured before it leaves the factory because it is so muchcheaper than store alcohol .
Watch the modern marvels corn episode for details .
( industrial alcohol is still denatured )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ecosmartfire.com/en/about-the-fireplaces/what-is-the-fuelEthanol is denatured before it leaves the factory because it is so muchcheaper than store alcohol.
Watch the modern marvels corn episode for details.
(industrial alcohol is still denatured)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302606</id>
	<title>.Gov hates the people</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1267291920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact.</p><p>There are two Americas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact.There are two Americas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact.There are two Americas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303476</id>
	<title>Re:Denaturing Alcohol is standard practice...</title>
	<author>Sleepy</author>
	<datestamp>1267300560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you did not balance your statement... denaturing is meant to make you FEEL sick so you don't want to drink the stuff. If you pushed past the nausea and drank the stuff anyways, you will NOT die with denatured alcohol.</p><p>This was just government sanctioned murder for political purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you did not balance your statement... denaturing is meant to make you FEEL sick so you do n't want to drink the stuff .
If you pushed past the nausea and drank the stuff anyways , you will NOT die with denatured alcohol.This was just government sanctioned murder for political purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you did not balance your statement... denaturing is meant to make you FEEL sick so you don't want to drink the stuff.
If you pushed past the nausea and drank the stuff anyways, you will NOT die with denatured alcohol.This was just government sanctioned murder for political purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303824</id>
	<title>iDrink windsor whisky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267348140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>citation please.  i know im a coward, but, still; for my sake, please explain how everyone adds methanol to my booze.</p><p>what other distilled stuff do i drink?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>citation please .
i know im a coward , but , still ; for my sake , please explain how everyone adds methanol to my booze.what other distilled stuff do i drink ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>citation please.
i know im a coward, but, still; for my sake, please explain how everyone adds methanol to my booze.what other distilled stuff do i drink?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304646</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1267362660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the 1970s and early 1980s, some religious cults practiced sacred prostitution as an instrument to recruit new converts. Among them was the alleged cult Children of God, also known as The Family, who called this practice "Flirty Fishing". They later abolished the practice due to the growing AIDS epidemic.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 1970s and early 1980s , some religious cults practiced sacred prostitution as an instrument to recruit new converts .
Among them was the alleged cult Children of God , also known as The Family , who called this practice " Flirty Fishing " .
They later abolished the practice due to the growing AIDS epidemic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 1970s and early 1980s, some religious cults practiced sacred prostitution as an instrument to recruit new converts.
Among them was the alleged cult Children of God, also known as The Family, who called this practice "Flirty Fishing".
They later abolished the practice due to the growing AIDS epidemic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301442</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1267281960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in order to protect people from themselves, they poisoned people. Oh, how logical that is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in order to protect people from themselves , they poisoned people .
Oh , how logical that is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in order to protect people from themselves, they poisoned people.
Oh, how logical that is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301156</id>
	<title>Oh, damn.</title>
	<author>mikkelm</author>
	<datestamp>1267279980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what's going to happen to all those "at least we aren't killing our own people" arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's going to happen to all those " at least we are n't killing our own people " arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's going to happen to all those "at least we aren't killing our own people" arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Cheviot</author>
	<datestamp>1267279920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like the government kept this a secret. The bottles were even marked "poison". If stupid people chose to drink poison...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like the government kept this a secret .
The bottles were even marked " poison " .
If stupid people chose to drink poison.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like the government kept this a secret.
The bottles were even marked "poison".
If stupid people chose to drink poison...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301822</id>
	<title>More blood on Christian hands. Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Few more marks for the already incalculable body count of Christianity and organized religion.</p><p>Is anyone really surprised that they'd poison people in the name of their fucked up, righteously incorrect morality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Few more marks for the already incalculable body count of Christianity and organized religion.Is anyone really surprised that they 'd poison people in the name of their fucked up , righteously incorrect morality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few more marks for the already incalculable body count of Christianity and organized religion.Is anyone really surprised that they'd poison people in the name of their fucked up, righteously incorrect morality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302114</id>
	<title>Booze hounds have drunk wood (methyl) alcohol</title>
	<author>grandpa-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1267287720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Denatured alcohol wasn't the only poisonous alcohol people drank.  Some people drank wood alcohol (methanol), which is itself poisonous.  I remember hearing of a concoction called "smoke" that was wood alcohol mixed with water.  The people who drank it were called "smoke hounds".  It could make them blind and kill them, but they drank it anyway.  I once heard of a blind musician who had become blind by drinking smoke when he was in prison.</p><p>Some people are crazy enough to drink anything, poison or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Denatured alcohol was n't the only poisonous alcohol people drank .
Some people drank wood alcohol ( methanol ) , which is itself poisonous .
I remember hearing of a concoction called " smoke " that was wood alcohol mixed with water .
The people who drank it were called " smoke hounds " .
It could make them blind and kill them , but they drank it anyway .
I once heard of a blind musician who had become blind by drinking smoke when he was in prison.Some people are crazy enough to drink anything , poison or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denatured alcohol wasn't the only poisonous alcohol people drank.
Some people drank wood alcohol (methanol), which is itself poisonous.
I remember hearing of a concoction called "smoke" that was wood alcohol mixed with water.
The people who drank it were called "smoke hounds".
It could make them blind and kill them, but they drank it anyway.
I once heard of a blind musician who had become blind by drinking smoke when he was in prison.Some people are crazy enough to drink anything, poison or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301200</id>
	<title>Methanol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait wait wait...we're talking about "poisoning" methanol? Which is already extremely toxic?</p><p>I don't really see the purpose, but I definitely don't see a reason for outrage. Denatured alcohol (ethanol poisoned with methanol) is still produced, largely for taxation purposes I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait wait wait...we 're talking about " poisoning " methanol ?
Which is already extremely toxic ? I do n't really see the purpose , but I definitely do n't see a reason for outrage .
Denatured alcohol ( ethanol poisoned with methanol ) is still produced , largely for taxation purposes I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait wait wait...we're talking about "poisoning" methanol?
Which is already extremely toxic?I don't really see the purpose, but I definitely don't see a reason for outrage.
Denatured alcohol (ethanol poisoned with methanol) is still produced, largely for taxation purposes I believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301382</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes...</title>
	<author>the biologist</author>
	<datestamp>1267281420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>interesting, given that opiates are poison in "very high doses".</htmltext>
<tokenext>interesting , given that opiates are poison in " very high doses " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interesting, given that opiates are poison in "very high doses".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301462</id>
	<title>Still doing it, aren't we?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1267282140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not be the government doing it directly, but are there not still Federal laws and policies in place requiring that manufacturers of certain products containing ethanol and methanol be "poisoned"?</p><p>This isn't really so shocking when viewed from a global and historical perspective.  Don't forget, it also wasn't just German institutions that advocated and implemented various forms of eugenics.  In California in the 1920s, it was policy to sterilize patients in sanitariums, lest they be allowed to spread their imperfections further in the gene pool.</p><p>Something like this poisoning program is guaranteed to happen again.  The only thing more imperfect than our gene pool is our implementations of democracy.  It has always been so, because unfortunately there's no such thing as "set it and forget it" democracy; you have to keep after it constantly and aggressively.  Ethical and political entropy sets in VERY quickly if you look away - or turn a blind eye - for even a moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be the government doing it directly , but are there not still Federal laws and policies in place requiring that manufacturers of certain products containing ethanol and methanol be " poisoned " ? This is n't really so shocking when viewed from a global and historical perspective .
Do n't forget , it also was n't just German institutions that advocated and implemented various forms of eugenics .
In California in the 1920s , it was policy to sterilize patients in sanitariums , lest they be allowed to spread their imperfections further in the gene pool.Something like this poisoning program is guaranteed to happen again .
The only thing more imperfect than our gene pool is our implementations of democracy .
It has always been so , because unfortunately there 's no such thing as " set it and forget it " democracy ; you have to keep after it constantly and aggressively .
Ethical and political entropy sets in VERY quickly if you look away - or turn a blind eye - for even a moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be the government doing it directly, but are there not still Federal laws and policies in place requiring that manufacturers of certain products containing ethanol and methanol be "poisoned"?This isn't really so shocking when viewed from a global and historical perspective.
Don't forget, it also wasn't just German institutions that advocated and implemented various forms of eugenics.
In California in the 1920s, it was policy to sterilize patients in sanitariums, lest they be allowed to spread their imperfections further in the gene pool.Something like this poisoning program is guaranteed to happen again.
The only thing more imperfect than our gene pool is our implementations of democracy.
It has always been so, because unfortunately there's no such thing as "set it and forget it" democracy; you have to keep after it constantly and aggressively.
Ethical and political entropy sets in VERY quickly if you look away - or turn a blind eye - for even a moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301832</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>EllaFrancon</author>
	<datestamp>1267285500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yikes!  Playing god indeed.  How quickly those in charge forget the original intentions behind their regulations: to protect the well-being of the people (protecting the right to life and liberty having been ignored from the get-go) .  Gotta love those good intentions.   The idea of poisoning alcohol is like if the government recruited people infected with HIV/AIDS to work as prostitutes pushing unprotected sex, probably would directly kill more people than it would deter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I suppose one can't break the law once dead though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yikes !
Playing god indeed .
How quickly those in charge forget the original intentions behind their regulations : to protect the well-being of the people ( protecting the right to life and liberty having been ignored from the get-go ) .
Got ta love those good intentions .
The idea of poisoning alcohol is like if the government recruited people infected with HIV/AIDS to work as prostitutes pushing unprotected sex , probably would directly kill more people than it would deter ... I suppose one ca n't break the law once dead though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yikes!
Playing god indeed.
How quickly those in charge forget the original intentions behind their regulations: to protect the well-being of the people (protecting the right to life and liberty having been ignored from the get-go) .
Gotta love those good intentions.
The idea of poisoning alcohol is like if the government recruited people infected with HIV/AIDS to work as prostitutes pushing unprotected sex, probably would directly kill more people than it would deter ... I suppose one can't break the law once dead though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302094</id>
	<title>Re:I approve of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that case, pot shouldn't be your target.</p><p>Try cocaine. That's a rich boy's toy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case , pot should n't be your target.Try cocaine .
That 's a rich boy 's toy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case, pot shouldn't be your target.Try cocaine.
That's a rich boy's toy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302544</id>
	<title>They are still doing it.</title>
	<author>Jafafa Hots</author>
	<datestamp>1267291380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, you can't get codeine without acetaminophen. The government requires that all codeine preparations contain it.</p><p>The reason for this is NOT because acetaminophen makes it more effective, a better pain killer, safer, or anything at all.</p><p>The ENTIRE reason is because acetaminophen is toxic in high doses - so that the codeine cannot be abused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , you ca n't get codeine without acetaminophen .
The government requires that all codeine preparations contain it.The reason for this is NOT because acetaminophen makes it more effective , a better pain killer , safer , or anything at all.The ENTIRE reason is because acetaminophen is toxic in high doses - so that the codeine can not be abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, you can't get codeine without acetaminophen.
The government requires that all codeine preparations contain it.The reason for this is NOT because acetaminophen makes it more effective, a better pain killer, safer, or anything at all.The ENTIRE reason is because acetaminophen is toxic in high doses - so that the codeine cannot be abused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301224</id>
	<title>It's still true today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others above have noted, this program continues today.  'Denatured' alcohol is just poisoned alcohol.  This is a legal mandate, and was kept on after prohibition in order to support high alcohol taxes.</p><p>Ethanol is very cheap to produce and is used by industry as a solvent or antiseptic.  The main additive is methanol, which causes blindless before it kills you -- classy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others above have noted , this program continues today .
'Denatured ' alcohol is just poisoned alcohol .
This is a legal mandate , and was kept on after prohibition in order to support high alcohol taxes.Ethanol is very cheap to produce and is used by industry as a solvent or antiseptic .
The main additive is methanol , which causes blindless before it kills you -- classy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others above have noted, this program continues today.
'Denatured' alcohol is just poisoned alcohol.
This is a legal mandate, and was kept on after prohibition in order to support high alcohol taxes.Ethanol is very cheap to produce and is used by industry as a solvent or antiseptic.
The main additive is methanol, which causes blindless before it kills you -- classy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302694</id>
	<title>Re:Listen you Dolts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, I call this 'Darwin in action'. You're too stupid to read a warning label and think 'Hey, this shit might actually KILL ME', well...you deserve what you get. Here's a toast to personal responsibility! Cheers! *glug glug glug glug*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I call this 'Darwin in action' .
You 're too stupid to read a warning label and think 'Hey , this shit might actually KILL ME ' , well...you deserve what you get .
Here 's a toast to personal responsibility !
Cheers ! * glug glug glug glug * : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I call this 'Darwin in action'.
You're too stupid to read a warning label and think 'Hey, this shit might actually KILL ME', well...you deserve what you get.
Here's a toast to personal responsibility!
Cheers! *glug glug glug glug* :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302530</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1267291320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should I wish someone to hell? Why not keep them alive and tell them about how great Jesus is and that through trusting in Jesus you sins will be forgiven and you will be able to go to heaven.  And then watch them grow as a new creature in Christ<br> <br>

Speaking of which, you do know Christ right? <a href="http://www.simplysharejesus.com/" title="simplysharejesus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.simplysharejesus.com/</a> [simplysharejesus.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should I wish someone to hell ?
Why not keep them alive and tell them about how great Jesus is and that through trusting in Jesus you sins will be forgiven and you will be able to go to heaven .
And then watch them grow as a new creature in Christ Speaking of which , you do know Christ right ?
http : //www.simplysharejesus.com/ [ simplysharejesus.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should I wish someone to hell?
Why not keep them alive and tell them about how great Jesus is and that through trusting in Jesus you sins will be forgiven and you will be able to go to heaven.
And then watch them grow as a new creature in Christ 

Speaking of which, you do know Christ right?
http://www.simplysharejesus.com/ [simplysharejesus.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301562</id>
	<title>Broken Summary -- industrial alcohol != methanol</title>
	<author>4181</author>
	<datestamp>1267282920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... it [the government] decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol &mdash; itself a poison &mdash; didn't taste nasty enough.</p></div><p>The article got it right:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol [ethyl alcohol] with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s.  Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix.</p></div><p>It's not as if you would ever need to denature methanol.  Denatured alcohol is typically ethanol with 10\% methanol (a toxin) added.  Such a formulation is also called methylated spirits.
</p><p>-- </p><p>
I find it amusing that one of the antidotes used to treat <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Toxicity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">methanol poisoning</a> [wikipedia.org] is ethanol.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it [ the government ] decided that the problem was that readily available methyl ( industrial ) alcohol    itself a poison    did n't taste nasty enough.The article got it right : Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol [ ethyl alcohol ] with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable .
... Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s .
Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix.It 's not as if you would ever need to denature methanol .
Denatured alcohol is typically ethanol with 10 \ % methanol ( a toxin ) added .
Such a formulation is also called methylated spirits .
-- I find it amusing that one of the antidotes used to treat methanol poisoning [ wikipedia.org ] is ethanol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... it [the government] decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol — itself a poison — didn't taste nasty enough.The article got it right:Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol [ethyl alcohol] with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable.
... Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s.
Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix.It's not as if you would ever need to denature methanol.
Denatured alcohol is typically ethanol with 10\% methanol (a toxin) added.
Such a formulation is also called methylated spirits.
-- 
I find it amusing that one of the antidotes used to treat methanol poisoning [wikipedia.org] is ethanol.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301174</id>
	<title>Re:Feds still going on</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1267280100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid doctors are as much to blame for this as the FDA.  When a drug company's patent is about to expire, they often superficially change the molecular structure of the popular drug so that they can get a new patent.  Then they start the marketing blitz to "ask your doctor about" the new drug.  Smart doctors will prescribe the proven cure over the patent cash-in drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid doctors are as much to blame for this as the FDA .
When a drug company 's patent is about to expire , they often superficially change the molecular structure of the popular drug so that they can get a new patent .
Then they start the marketing blitz to " ask your doctor about " the new drug .
Smart doctors will prescribe the proven cure over the patent cash-in drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid doctors are as much to blame for this as the FDA.
When a drug company's patent is about to expire, they often superficially change the molecular structure of the popular drug so that they can get a new patent.
Then they start the marketing blitz to "ask your doctor about" the new drug.
Smart doctors will prescribe the proven cure over the patent cash-in drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302032</id>
	<title>Re:190 Proof Alcohol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267286940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some states (and all U.S. military bases) you can get something called Everclear.  It's available in 151 and 190 proof varieties.</p><p>We used to use it in our "jungle juice" parties, and I know a sweet old lady in upstate New York who uses it to make some fantastic Limoncello.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some states ( and all U.S. military bases ) you can get something called Everclear .
It 's available in 151 and 190 proof varieties.We used to use it in our " jungle juice " parties , and I know a sweet old lady in upstate New York who uses it to make some fantastic Limoncello .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some states (and all U.S. military bases) you can get something called Everclear.
It's available in 151 and 190 proof varieties.We used to use it in our "jungle juice" parties, and I know a sweet old lady in upstate New York who uses it to make some fantastic Limoncello.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31319636</id>
	<title>Re:They still do this</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1267472160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the whole system would be undermined.<br></i></p><p>Maybe it should be.   Why should it be taxed at anything other than the sales tax rate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the whole system would be undermined.Maybe it should be .
Why should it be taxed at anything other than the sales tax rate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the whole system would be undermined.Maybe it should be.
Why should it be taxed at anything other than the sales tax rate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304420</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1267358760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Methanol isn't the poison they started adding to alcohol during the Prohibition - if you'd read the article carefully, the Government decided that methanol (which was already added to industrial alcohol) wasn't effective enough and insisted that even more toxic substances be added too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Methanol is n't the poison they started adding to alcohol during the Prohibition - if you 'd read the article carefully , the Government decided that methanol ( which was already added to industrial alcohol ) was n't effective enough and insisted that even more toxic substances be added too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Methanol isn't the poison they started adding to alcohol during the Prohibition - if you'd read the article carefully, the Government decided that methanol (which was already added to industrial alcohol) wasn't effective enough and insisted that even more toxic substances be added too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301334</id>
	<title>Alcohol is a poison anyways...</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1267281120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psilocybin Mushrooms are a safe &amp; legal way to expand your mind &amp; have a good time...not alcohol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psilocybin Mushrooms are a safe &amp; legal way to expand your mind &amp; have a good time...not alcohol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psilocybin Mushrooms are a safe &amp; legal way to expand your mind &amp; have a good time...not alcohol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302190</id>
	<title>Weed</title>
	<author>andoman2000</author>
	<datestamp>1267288500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>shit this is no surprise they've been messing with my weed for year!</htmltext>
<tokenext>shit this is no surprise they 've been messing with my weed for year !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shit this is no surprise they've been messing with my weed for year!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31313440</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>CarbonShell</author>
	<datestamp>1267439220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh, by the way...use them and you will burn for eternity!?"<br>Love it!</p><p>A comedian (and a doctor so all his jokes revolve around that) once said:<br>If god had not wanted to masturbate, he would not have given us long enough arms.</p><p>And my personal favourite (when people, esp. for US Americans):<br>If god had wanted us to run around nekkid, we would have been born that way. (pls. note the sarcasm)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh , by the way...use them and you will burn for eternity ! ?
" Love it ! A comedian ( and a doctor so all his jokes revolve around that ) once said : If god had not wanted to masturbate , he would not have given us long enough arms.And my personal favourite ( when people , esp .
for US Americans ) : If god had wanted us to run around nekkid , we would have been born that way .
( pls. note the sarcasm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh, by the way...use them and you will burn for eternity!?
"Love it!A comedian (and a doctor so all his jokes revolve around that) once said:If god had not wanted to masturbate, he would not have given us long enough arms.And my personal favourite (when people, esp.
for US Americans):If god had wanted us to run around nekkid, we would have been born that way.
(pls. note the sarcasm)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301400</id>
	<title>Interesting none the less, and...</title>
	<author>ebuilder</author>
	<datestamp>1267281540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew about the denatured alcohol, but not the additives to opiates.<br>It might be worth adding that making industrial alcohols poisonous is mostly for taxation.<br>For instance you can (with a supposedly easily obtained permit) make alcohol for fuel, but it must be made in-consumable, however if you use that to drive on public roads you still need to pay a tax on it.<br>Same old story... The "do gooders" insist on the rules and the bureaucrats, criminals and middle men capitalize on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew about the denatured alcohol , but not the additives to opiates.It might be worth adding that making industrial alcohols poisonous is mostly for taxation.For instance you can ( with a supposedly easily obtained permit ) make alcohol for fuel , but it must be made in-consumable , however if you use that to drive on public roads you still need to pay a tax on it.Same old story... The " do gooders " insist on the rules and the bureaucrats , criminals and middle men capitalize on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew about the denatured alcohol, but not the additives to opiates.It might be worth adding that making industrial alcohols poisonous is mostly for taxation.For instance you can (with a supposedly easily obtained permit) make alcohol for fuel, but it must be made in-consumable, however if you use that to drive on public roads you still need to pay a tax on it.Same old story... The "do gooders" insist on the rules and the bureaucrats, criminals and middle men capitalize on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772</id>
	<title>temperance movement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure you can lay all the blame for the temperance movement upon christianity, substantial blame also rests with the women's right advocates.  Ironically, woman's rights has generally been an astounding atheistic movement throughout the last two centuries, with the temperance movement being uniquely both religious and disastrous.</p><p>That said, authoritarian and/or religiously motivated men were the ones who imposed and implemented the poisoning.  So yes you may lay these 10,000 deaths at the feet of authoritarianism and christianity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure you can lay all the blame for the temperance movement upon christianity , substantial blame also rests with the women 's right advocates .
Ironically , woman 's rights has generally been an astounding atheistic movement throughout the last two centuries , with the temperance movement being uniquely both religious and disastrous.That said , authoritarian and/or religiously motivated men were the ones who imposed and implemented the poisoning .
So yes you may lay these 10,000 deaths at the feet of authoritarianism and christianity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure you can lay all the blame for the temperance movement upon christianity, substantial blame also rests with the women's right advocates.
Ironically, woman's rights has generally been an astounding atheistic movement throughout the last two centuries, with the temperance movement being uniquely both religious and disastrous.That said, authoritarian and/or religiously motivated men were the ones who imposed and implemented the poisoning.
So yes you may lay these 10,000 deaths at the feet of authoritarianism and christianity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304444</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267359420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. I mean if there's anything out there that can turn an atheist into a believer, blow jobs would be it. Hell, they should train women (and probably some dudes too), to go around and convert people by oral sex.</p><p>Imagine the scene:<br>*Door bell*<br>Dude: Hello?<br>Woman: Good day sir, have you given yourself to Jesus?<br>Dude: Nah, I don't believe in god.<br>Woman: Well, allow me to introduce you to him!<br>*bow chicka wow wow*</p><p>So, OK, that won't happen, but you have to wonder why not since some religions are willing to do almost anything in the name of conversion, or smiting enemies for that matter. The end seems to justify the means more often than not, so why is sex so totally off limits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I mean if there 's anything out there that can turn an atheist into a believer , blow jobs would be it .
Hell , they should train women ( and probably some dudes too ) , to go around and convert people by oral sex.Imagine the scene : * Door bell * Dude : Hello ? Woman : Good day sir , have you given yourself to Jesus ? Dude : Nah , I do n't believe in god.Woman : Well , allow me to introduce you to him !
* bow chicka wow wow * So , OK , that wo n't happen , but you have to wonder why not since some religions are willing to do almost anything in the name of conversion , or smiting enemies for that matter .
The end seems to justify the means more often than not , so why is sex so totally off limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I mean if there's anything out there that can turn an atheist into a believer, blow jobs would be it.
Hell, they should train women (and probably some dudes too), to go around and convert people by oral sex.Imagine the scene:*Door bell*Dude: Hello?Woman: Good day sir, have you given yourself to Jesus?Dude: Nah, I don't believe in god.Woman: Well, allow me to introduce you to him!
*bow chicka wow wow*So, OK, that won't happen, but you have to wonder why not since some religions are willing to do almost anything in the name of conversion, or smiting enemies for that matter.
The end seems to justify the means more often than not, so why is sex so totally off limits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303700</id>
	<title>Re:Still happening</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267389660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The US has, for example, been poisoning marijuana fields with paraquat for decades.</p></div></blockquote><p>Paraquat is a herbicide.  It's effects on the marijuana should be fast enough that it can't be sold and used.  Statistics show that only a very small number of human deaths from the agent are unintentional, so I don't even see any POTENTIAL basis for your claim.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has , for example , been poisoning marijuana fields with paraquat for decades.Paraquat is a herbicide .
It 's effects on the marijuana should be fast enough that it ca n't be sold and used .
Statistics show that only a very small number of human deaths from the agent are unintentional , so I do n't even see any POTENTIAL basis for your claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has, for example, been poisoning marijuana fields with paraquat for decades.Paraquat is a herbicide.
It's effects on the marijuana should be fast enough that it can't be sold and used.
Statistics show that only a very small number of human deaths from the agent are unintentional, so I don't even see any POTENTIAL basis for your claim.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305042</id>
	<title>V</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your government kills you and you do not react.</p><p>Your government kills your uncorrupted and morally decent leaders and you do not react.</p><p>Your government crashes planes into building to get public support for war on other countries for their resources and you believe them.</p><p>USA is the next Roman empire.</p><p>Long live the Eurasia alliance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your government kills you and you do not react.Your government kills your uncorrupted and morally decent leaders and you do not react.Your government crashes planes into building to get public support for war on other countries for their resources and you believe them.USA is the next Roman empire.Long live the Eurasia alliance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your government kills you and you do not react.Your government kills your uncorrupted and morally decent leaders and you do not react.Your government crashes planes into building to get public support for war on other countries for their resources and you believe them.USA is the next Roman empire.Long live the Eurasia alliance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304520</id>
	<title>Re:temperance movement</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1267360800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I don't think it's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity. As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism. Don't get me wrong, many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism, but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?</i> <br> <br>Fairly early on in it's history Christianity was adopted by a "super power" state. Roman Catholisism could hardly have been anything other than authoritatian.<br>All of the Abrahamic religions appear to be somewhat anti-athoritarian. But that dosn't stop highly authoritarian versions of them existing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity .
As far as I can tell , christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism .
Do n't get me wrong , many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism , but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it 's basic tenants , willfully ignore it , or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy ?
Fairly early on in it 's history Christianity was adopted by a " super power " state .
Roman Catholisism could hardly have been anything other than authoritatian.All of the Abrahamic religions appear to be somewhat anti-athoritarian .
But that dos n't stop highly authoritarian versions of them existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity.
As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism.
Don't get me wrong, many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism, but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?
Fairly early on in it's history Christianity was adopted by a "super power" state.
Roman Catholisism could hardly have been anything other than authoritatian.All of the Abrahamic religions appear to be somewhat anti-athoritarian.
But that dosn't stop highly authoritarian versions of them existing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Religionists are against booze</p></div></blockquote><p>That's nothing!  They're against blowjobs, too, if you can believe that.  You can look it up.</p><p>What kind of sick view of the world warps a person to the point where they believe that having someone brush their teeth with the old meat whistle is actually a <i>bad thing</i>?</p><p>Seriously.</p><p>I think I was a freshman in high school when one of the Jesuits at the catholic high school I attended said that oral sex was sinful because it was a sexual act that did not give glory to the Lord as a reproductive act.  That was when I realized there could not be a god that would give us peckers and mouths and then say "Oh, by the way...<i>use them and you will burn for eternity!</i>?.  It just defied any sort of logic IMO.</p><p>That was about the end of organized religion for me.  Although I did once go to a Catholic Youth Organization function once more because I thought I might be able to get Patti O'Connor to give me a wobble job if I was really nice to her and appeared to be a devout person.  It didn't work, so I never again darkened the door of a religious institution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Religionists are against boozeThat 's nothing !
They 're against blowjobs , too , if you can believe that .
You can look it up.What kind of sick view of the world warps a person to the point where they believe that having someone brush their teeth with the old meat whistle is actually a bad thing ? Seriously.I think I was a freshman in high school when one of the Jesuits at the catholic high school I attended said that oral sex was sinful because it was a sexual act that did not give glory to the Lord as a reproductive act .
That was when I realized there could not be a god that would give us peckers and mouths and then say " Oh , by the way...use them and you will burn for eternity ! ? .
It just defied any sort of logic IMO.That was about the end of organized religion for me .
Although I did once go to a Catholic Youth Organization function once more because I thought I might be able to get Patti O'Connor to give me a wobble job if I was really nice to her and appeared to be a devout person .
It did n't work , so I never again darkened the door of a religious institution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religionists are against boozeThat's nothing!
They're against blowjobs, too, if you can believe that.
You can look it up.What kind of sick view of the world warps a person to the point where they believe that having someone brush their teeth with the old meat whistle is actually a bad thing?Seriously.I think I was a freshman in high school when one of the Jesuits at the catholic high school I attended said that oral sex was sinful because it was a sexual act that did not give glory to the Lord as a reproductive act.
That was when I realized there could not be a god that would give us peckers and mouths and then say "Oh, by the way...use them and you will burn for eternity!?.
It just defied any sort of logic IMO.That was about the end of organized religion for me.
Although I did once go to a Catholic Youth Organization function once more because I thought I might be able to get Patti O'Connor to give me a wobble job if I was really nice to her and appeared to be a devout person.
It didn't work, so I never again darkened the door of a religious institution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303534</id>
	<title>Ethanol, not methanol was the target.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> By the mid-1920s, when the government saw that its 'noble experiment' was in danger of failing, it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol -- itself a poison -- didn't taste nasty enough.</p></div><p>Not quite. Methanol is very poisonous all on its own and the gov't was't worried about people drinking it because it would kill anyone who did.</p><p>The gov't decided that industrial ethyl, not methyl, alcohol didn't taste nasty enough. In fact, they eventually decided that there was no such thing as "tasting nasty enough" when it came to ethanol and that actual poison needed to added to kill people who dared to defy prohibition. One of the poisons that they specified to be added was, yep, methanol because it had been proven to be so effective at killing people who drank it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the mid-1920s , when the government saw that its 'noble experiment ' was in danger of failing , it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl ( industrial ) alcohol -- itself a poison -- did n't taste nasty enough.Not quite .
Methanol is very poisonous all on its own and the gov't was't worried about people drinking it because it would kill anyone who did.The gov't decided that industrial ethyl , not methyl , alcohol did n't taste nasty enough .
In fact , they eventually decided that there was no such thing as " tasting nasty enough " when it came to ethanol and that actual poison needed to added to kill people who dared to defy prohibition .
One of the poisons that they specified to be added was , yep , methanol because it had been proven to be so effective at killing people who drank it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> By the mid-1920s, when the government saw that its 'noble experiment' was in danger of failing, it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol -- itself a poison -- didn't taste nasty enough.Not quite.
Methanol is very poisonous all on its own and the gov't was't worried about people drinking it because it would kill anyone who did.The gov't decided that industrial ethyl, not methyl, alcohol didn't taste nasty enough.
In fact, they eventually decided that there was no such thing as "tasting nasty enough" when it came to ethanol and that actual poison needed to added to kill people who dared to defy prohibition.
One of the poisons that they specified to be added was, yep, methanol because it had been proven to be so effective at killing people who drank it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301278</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that this is an industrial solvent that was never designed or intended for human consumption. And yes... if you buy ethyl alcohol today from an industrial supply company? Still poisonous. Still marked as poison, yet people aren't drinking the stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that this is an industrial solvent that was never designed or intended for human consumption .
And yes... if you buy ethyl alcohol today from an industrial supply company ?
Still poisonous .
Still marked as poison , yet people are n't drinking the stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that this is an industrial solvent that was never designed or intended for human consumption.
And yes... if you buy ethyl alcohol today from an industrial supply company?
Still poisonous.
Still marked as poison, yet people aren't drinking the stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303146</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this, because the industrial alcohol <b>IS</b> poison,  even before the government started meddling.</p><p>To avoid the <b>excise tax</b>  on  liquors,   industrial alcohol has to have <b>methanol</b> added to it.</p></div><p>Most rubbing alcohol, which is what people tended to buy, was pure ethanol and marked as such.  They weren't 'marked poison'.  Often as not, they weren't marked <i>at all</i>, with <i>anything,</i>  Pharmacists were expected to know their merchandise.  All that was necessary to avoid excise tax was to declare it a medical product.</p><p>People drank it all the time.  They didn't grow up in a world where all the alcohol was denatured, after all.  They grew up in a world where pharmacies had pure alcohol, which might be legitimately used for disinfection or for preparation of a tincture.  A tincture which patients would consume.  Why would a pharmacy keep separate stocks of alcohol for rubbing and for preparation of panegyric?  That would just be silly.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol,  and unsuitable for drinking.<br>But is required for it to be tax exempt.</p></div><p>True now, not true then.  The denaturization requirement, remember, is a product of the 1920's.  It originally had nothing to do with preventing tax evasion; it had to to with making sure <i>no human consumable alcohol existed, period.</i> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyways, the issue is during the prohbition, some people were already drinking that unsuitable stuff.<br>They were desperate, they were (probably) addicted, they took what they could get.<br>So a lot of people were drinking this (a bit) industrial alcohol containing some [probably small] quantity of poisonous methanol.</p></div><p>This much is true.  The lack of available sources of human-grade alcohol did indeed lead to consumption and sale of unfit products, even without governmental intervention to make the problem worse.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So then the government' comes up with this  "solution"  is to make the stuff more deadly....<br>swiftly and quietly...brilliant!</p><p>Just because they didn't keep it a secret doesn't mean everyone automatically knew about it.</p><p>Or even that they had a good alternative.</p></div><p>Very, very true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this , because the industrial alcohol IS poison , even before the government started meddling.To avoid the excise tax on liquors , industrial alcohol has to have methanol added to it.Most rubbing alcohol , which is what people tended to buy , was pure ethanol and marked as such .
They were n't 'marked poison' .
Often as not , they were n't marked at all , with anything , Pharmacists were expected to know their merchandise .
All that was necessary to avoid excise tax was to declare it a medical product.People drank it all the time .
They did n't grow up in a world where all the alcohol was denatured , after all .
They grew up in a world where pharmacies had pure alcohol , which might be legitimately used for disinfection or for preparation of a tincture .
A tincture which patients would consume .
Why would a pharmacy keep separate stocks of alcohol for rubbing and for preparation of panegyric ?
That would just be silly.The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol , and unsuitable for drinking.But is required for it to be tax exempt.True now , not true then .
The denaturization requirement , remember , is a product of the 1920 's .
It originally had nothing to do with preventing tax evasion ; it had to to with making sure no human consumable alcohol existed , period .
Anyways , the issue is during the prohbition , some people were already drinking that unsuitable stuff.They were desperate , they were ( probably ) addicted , they took what they could get.So a lot of people were drinking this ( a bit ) industrial alcohol containing some [ probably small ] quantity of poisonous methanol.This much is true .
The lack of available sources of human-grade alcohol did indeed lead to consumption and sale of unfit products , even without governmental intervention to make the problem worse.So then the government ' comes up with this " solution " is to make the stuff more deadly....swiftly and quietly...brilliant ! Just because they did n't keep it a secret does n't mean everyone automatically knew about it.Or even that they had a good alternative.Very , very true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottles were marked poison before the government started doing this, because the industrial alcohol IS poison,  even before the government started meddling.To avoid the excise tax  on  liquors,   industrial alcohol has to have methanol added to it.Most rubbing alcohol, which is what people tended to buy, was pure ethanol and marked as such.
They weren't 'marked poison'.
Often as not, they weren't marked at all, with anything,  Pharmacists were expected to know their merchandise.
All that was necessary to avoid excise tax was to declare it a medical product.People drank it all the time.
They didn't grow up in a world where all the alcohol was denatured, after all.
They grew up in a world where pharmacies had pure alcohol, which might be legitimately used for disinfection or for preparation of a tincture.
A tincture which patients would consume.
Why would a pharmacy keep separate stocks of alcohol for rubbing and for preparation of panegyric?
That would just be silly.The mathonal makes it even more toxic than ordinary ethanol,  and unsuitable for drinking.But is required for it to be tax exempt.True now, not true then.
The denaturization requirement, remember, is a product of the 1920's.
It originally had nothing to do with preventing tax evasion; it had to to with making sure no human consumable alcohol existed, period.
Anyways, the issue is during the prohbition, some people were already drinking that unsuitable stuff.They were desperate, they were (probably) addicted, they took what they could get.So a lot of people were drinking this (a bit) industrial alcohol containing some [probably small] quantity of poisonous methanol.This much is true.
The lack of available sources of human-grade alcohol did indeed lead to consumption and sale of unfit products, even without governmental intervention to make the problem worse.So then the government' comes up with this  "solution"  is to make the stuff more deadly....swiftly and quietly...brilliant!Just because they didn't keep it a secret doesn't mean everyone automatically knew about it.Or even that they had a good alternative.Very, very true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301354</id>
	<title>indulge me this digression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is it any wonder most people are uneasy about letting the govt manage our healthcare?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is it any wonder most people are uneasy about letting the govt manage our healthcare ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it any wonder most people are uneasy about letting the govt manage our healthcare?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301340</id>
	<title>190  Proof Alcohol</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1267281180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once nearly took a job at a distillery that produced alcohol for mixing with gasoline. It used some special Union Carbide pellets, pressure and high heat to chemically strip the water from the alcohol molecules, so efficiently that they had to <i>add</i> water to get it down to 190 proof. Even though the proofing house was refrigerated, you could get a good buzz on from just inhaling the air in the room much less drinking it (surprisingly it was very smooth); it was potent stuff. Anyway, before the 190-proof stuff could be shipped, it had to be rendered non-potable by, surprise, adding a small amount of gasoline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once nearly took a job at a distillery that produced alcohol for mixing with gasoline .
It used some special Union Carbide pellets , pressure and high heat to chemically strip the water from the alcohol molecules , so efficiently that they had to add water to get it down to 190 proof .
Even though the proofing house was refrigerated , you could get a good buzz on from just inhaling the air in the room much less drinking it ( surprisingly it was very smooth ) ; it was potent stuff .
Anyway , before the 190-proof stuff could be shipped , it had to be rendered non-potable by , surprise , adding a small amount of gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once nearly took a job at a distillery that produced alcohol for mixing with gasoline.
It used some special Union Carbide pellets, pressure and high heat to chemically strip the water from the alcohol molecules, so efficiently that they had to add water to get it down to 190 proof.
Even though the proofing house was refrigerated, you could get a good buzz on from just inhaling the air in the room much less drinking it (surprisingly it was very smooth); it was potent stuff.
Anyway, before the 190-proof stuff could be shipped, it had to be rendered non-potable by, surprise, adding a small amount of gasoline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303620</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't for the people, by the people</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1267388700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Religionists are against booze,</p><p>Many of the religious folk were certainly supporters but could not have been the primary mover.  Look at the who controlled the government at the time, it was the Progressives.  There were many reasons[1] that movement quickly disowned the name for the better part of a century before recently deciding that, their prior victims mostly dead of old age and the official histories carefully cleansed, they could reclaim the name and move openly against the Republic once again.</p><p>[1] Being on record saying nice things about every fasist dictator we would eventually end up fighting WWII and the Cold War against, Margaret sanger and her eugenics, the League of Nations, making the Depression Great, and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Religionists are against booze,Many of the religious folk were certainly supporters but could not have been the primary mover .
Look at the who controlled the government at the time , it was the Progressives .
There were many reasons [ 1 ] that movement quickly disowned the name for the better part of a century before recently deciding that , their prior victims mostly dead of old age and the official histories carefully cleansed , they could reclaim the name and move openly against the Republic once again .
[ 1 ] Being on record saying nice things about every fasist dictator we would eventually end up fighting WWII and the Cold War against , Margaret sanger and her eugenics , the League of Nations , making the Depression Great , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Religionists are against booze,Many of the religious folk were certainly supporters but could not have been the primary mover.
Look at the who controlled the government at the time, it was the Progressives.
There were many reasons[1] that movement quickly disowned the name for the better part of a century before recently deciding that, their prior victims mostly dead of old age and the official histories carefully cleansed, they could reclaim the name and move openly against the Republic once again.
[1] Being on record saying nice things about every fasist dictator we would eventually end up fighting WWII and the Cold War against, Margaret sanger and her eugenics, the League of Nations, making the Depression Great, and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301860</id>
	<title>Re:not that different today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen! we should learn the lesson of crime that Alcohol prohibition taught us in Chicago, as well as on the Detroit River and other locations, people find life depressing and want to hide from it. Thoreau observed that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation and drugs as well as alcohol provide a way to hide from the desperation. But the puritan remnant of our society says we should suffer because it is good for us. We need more tax revenue so here is an easy way to get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen !
we should learn the lesson of crime that Alcohol prohibition taught us in Chicago , as well as on the Detroit River and other locations , people find life depressing and want to hide from it .
Thoreau observed that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation and drugs as well as alcohol provide a way to hide from the desperation .
But the puritan remnant of our society says we should suffer because it is good for us .
We need more tax revenue so here is an easy way to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen!
we should learn the lesson of crime that Alcohol prohibition taught us in Chicago, as well as on the Detroit River and other locations, people find life depressing and want to hide from it.
Thoreau observed that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation and drugs as well as alcohol provide a way to hide from the desperation.
But the puritan remnant of our society says we should suffer because it is good for us.
We need more tax revenue so here is an easy way to get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305076</id>
	<title>Re:More Atrocities: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay for Slick Willy...I suppose we should forgive him for being a dick now?</p><p>And congratulations to you for turning this into a race issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay for Slick Willy...I suppose we should forgive him for being a dick now ? And congratulations to you for turning this into a race issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay for Slick Willy...I suppose we should forgive him for being a dick now?And congratulations to you for turning this into a race issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31308558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31318074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31311134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31318850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31319636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31313440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31322786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31320146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31306704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_2040251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31311134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31313440
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304444
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304646
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31308558
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31318074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303622
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307172
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31320146
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31322786
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305662
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304520
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31318850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31307070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31319636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31304420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31303966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31305040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302514
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31306704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_2040251.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31301194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_2040251.31302442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
