AV>This response clearly demonstrates your propensity to overgeneralize,
AV>and to merely deny what you don't agree with.  You have invariably
AV>exhibited this behavior with respect to drugs, how they affect people,
AV>and how people use them.  In this instance, you don't know all judges,
AV>you don't know most judges, you don't know Judge Young, you don't
AV>know what evidence Judge Young considered (unless you read his
AV>decision), and yet you make a conclusion based solely upon the fact
AV>that the person does not support your version of reality.  So, your
AV>sweeping opinions in these matters are not credible or unreliable.
I have been an "expert witness" in front of enough judges to realize
than precious few of them have any idea at all of what addiction is all
about.  There are a few here and there who belong to A.A. and therefore
have a much better understanding than you do, but these are few and far
between indeed.
It really doesn't matter what evidence he considered if he reached the
decision you published.  It wasn't enough to arrive at any conclusion
worth mentioning.
The religious right is in charge of diseminating information now, and we
therefore are back in the days of the Pilgrims as far as any "justice"
for any addict or any old women is concerned.
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
---------------