Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2008 11:29:13 GMT -4
If it's worked for such a long time, why introduce the country to problems that we have no idea that we'll be able to face? I'm all for progress as long as it doesn't lead to chaos. Drugs became illegal less than 100 years ago. Since then we have dumped billions of taxpayer dollars into the War on Drugs and taken millions of productive members of society into jail. All while not slowing the consuption of drugs one bit. What's the point? There are also thousands of police officers that agree with me www.LEAP.cc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2008 11:32:03 GMT -4
The legalization of drugs is a very complicated issue and I can see many reason to be for it but many of the presented here are lets say, not very well presented. Reading only selective information isn't gonna lead to educated opinions. That's the danger of the internet. It has lots of information and statistics but you still need to know how to interpert them. Using alcohol comparison as one of the arguments for hard drugs legalization is pure demagogy. When we say alcohol is the drug that has destroyed most lifes it is true and it sounds really impressive. But when we look deeper and put that in prespective and compare it to the number of users it doesn't sound that impressive. I'm sure most of us have consumed alcahol plenty of times. Sometimes even in excessive doses. It didn't do our health good but it didn't destroy our lifes. I drink a beer or a glass of wine, not every day but not very far. It doesn't alter my sense of perception mostly because the doses are small. And like me there are millions. Not everyone is a alcoholic. There are many and it's terrible but is the percentage of alcoholic over alcohol consumers that high? No. Now how many of us know guys that do heroin socially? Just small doses here and there? Or that use LSD weekly for years but just socially with friends and with no side effects? Some drugs you'll just keep wanting more and I've tried some of them and I've always wondered what would happened if they could be had easily in the local shop next to my house? The big difference is that with alcohol, you can use it with moderation for years socially and it doesn't get you addicted or change who you are. That doesn't happen with many drugs so it's hard to put them all in the same bag. And another false information is that death penalty in some asian country on drug use/traffic didn't slow drug use. The country being talked here is probably either Singapore or Malasya since they are the most discussed having that kind of punishment. Since 1975, when Singapore started enforcing the death penalty, the numbers have been decreasing. Does this mean this is the solution? Clearly not. First because the death penalty is retarded. Secondly because killing someone for having 0.54 ounces of pure heroin with them seems like a huge exaggeration. But mostly because it's not the only way to the goal. Singapore might be one of the few urban centers in the world where addiction appears to be declining over the long term but Amsterdam is another and it takes the opposite approach. Of course the Amsterdam way has also brought other problems very well know to the dutch but that's another issue. So bottom line, this is a really complicated issue. When I was younger I used to be 100% in favour of legalization but the fact is this is this isn't black or white. The more we learn and by learning I mean not just listening to one side of the argument, the more we realise there isn't an obvious solution and both sides can make really good points. I agree, it's not black and white at all and there are problems accociated either way. That's why I say we should let the problems manifest themselves on those who choose to do drugs instead of using countless taxpayer dollars to fight an ongoing losing battle.
|
|
kidtwentytwo
6th Man
SLOB - Braves & SLOC - Georgia
2006 SLOB Champions
Posts: 1,057
|
Post by kidtwentytwo on Mar 19, 2008 15:55:49 GMT -4
I blame the spike in drinking on the Big 10. Nothing makes me reach for a cold coors light faster than having to watch Iowa and Indiana punt the ball back and forth to each other. Being incoherently drunk at least makes the game go a little faster.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 19, 2008 16:10:32 GMT -4
People don't sue about alcohol cause they know they won't win. But suing drug companies for "lack of education," "improper dosages," etc. Plus how would a company be able to mass produce a drug that needs different amounts for different weights? You're putting too much trust into a generally stupid public.
And I realized, drug use could become as popular as drinking. Why? Advertising. If an ad says, "experience the most exciting thing in your life. Pfizer Cocaine." You think that wouldn't entice people to buy drugs? Sure, right now they might say they wouldn't try it if it were legal but factor in advertising.... Advertising already makes people consume a load of alcohol a year.
You do realize that almost every single big name drug on the market has a competing generic brand but the generic brand is rarely bought while the big name company drug is raking in profits. Competition in the drug field simply will not exist when you make it into businesses. Or they'll become a oligopoly (almost every industry is an oligopoly). Competition is good in theory but it really doesn't truly exist except for like the vegetable industry. Plus if a new company is going to try to compete, they'll have a whole bunch of companies working against them. See Vizio try to compete in the HDTV market. They are doing quite well for a relative start-up but they still only sell in certain places while Sony, Sharp, Mitsubishi, Samsung dominate the Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart shelves.
Yeah the site has a few things about drugs are bad. So do anti-drug websites on why people like taking drugs. But it's still overshadowed by the fact there's "Professor from Jackson College says drugs are good," "User A explains his experience,"... That site is no worse than anti-drug websites. They're both propaganda and both slanted significantly to a specific side.
Motive does matter cause a person can be not guilty of committing a crime if the motive proves that.
The state might be a little more efficient but much more? Doubt it. How long does it take for those potholes to get filled? How long does it take for permits of construction take to pass? Having the state handle it would also cause unequal distribution of welfare benefits (depending on how rich the state is) which would cause more poor people to migrate to that one state and then the unemployment is way too high in that state. It would just cause more problems. And can states really handle more than what is already on their platter?
We would need more of all of that to be able to handle the increase of people coming in. A lot more.
I would increase border patrol to slow the stream.
My point was... maybe 50-70% of people drink when they're under 21. But when that same group of people reach 21, it's probably 75-90%. I'm just making guesses but that's logically how it would work.
But honestly we're both right. You believe in very strong states, weak national government, and legalization of everything but murder. I believe that would cause anarchy but I don't support an overly strong national government or weaker states, just maintaining what works and keeps the country relatively stable. No one is certain what will happen but everyone has ideas on what can happen. And it will never happen unless a hippie Mexican is elected president.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 19, 2008 16:14:20 GMT -4
Oh and the government is cheated out of millions (maybe billions) of dollars each year, either by tax fraud or claims fraud. We're going to spend a trillion on Iraq. The government always wastes money. But they have to seem like they're doing something so we spill money into countless projects that probably aren't needed... often to attract votes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2008 16:27:58 GMT -4
Non-print advertising for cigarettes is illegal, but you think advertising for cocaine or heroine would be fine?
I think they'd take it a step further and outlaw ALL advertising for previously illicit drugs.
|
|
mancowmilitia
6th Man
SLOB - Cubs
2005 / 2009 SLOB Champions
Posts: 966
|
Post by mancowmilitia on Mar 20, 2008 12:52:11 GMT -4
I blame the spike in drinking on the Big 10. Nothing makes me reach for a cold coors light faster than having to watch Iowa and Indiana punt the ball back and forth to each other. Being incoherently drunk at least makes the game go a little faster. Yup - those 2 are also the reason all the trees in Illinois lean to the left: Iowa sucks and Indiana blows. ;D
|
|
|
Post by J-Sav on Apr 22, 2008 22:14:46 GMT -4
I HATE HILLARY CLINTON!
Clinton is gonna tear up the Democratic Party with her quest to hopefully beat Obama, and find some dirty way to win the nomination. If she cared about this country, and the state of the party, she would bow out gracefully, and everyone get behind Obama, so we can start talking politics, rather than bringing all the skeletons out of the closet. I'm really turned off by the negativity, and I believe Obama would change this world for the good. But just because of her on personal quest to become President, she is gonna bring this good man down, and the country with it. Obama has a plan, and to nickpick at his mistakes is wrong, and there is no need for this in politics, especially within a candidate's own party. If this still goes on, you can expect McCain to be the next president, because she has turned off alot of voters, and for all the people that wanted a Democrat in office, you can kiss that goodybe. So Hillary, for the good of this country, and the world, please get out, and lets try to move forward so we can do what we know is the right thing, and start debating about policy, and not people's mistakes, and make room for who could be the next great leader in the history of this world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2008 22:49:04 GMT -4
I HATE HILLARY CLINTON! Clinton is gonna tear up the Democratic Party with her quest to hopefully beat Obama, and find some dirty way to win the nomination. If she cared about this country, and the state of the party, she would bow out gracefully, and everyone get behind Obama, so we can start talking politics, rather than bringing all the skeletons out of the closet. I'm really turned off by the negativity, and I believe Obama would change this world for the good. But just because of her on personal quest to become President, she is gonna bring this good man down, and the country with it. Obama has a plan, and to nickpick at his mistakes is wrong, and there is no need for this in politics, especially within a candidate's own party. If this still goes on, you can expect McCain to be the next president, because she has turned off alot of voters, and for all the people that wanted a Democrat in office, you can kiss that goodybe. So Hillary, for the good of this country, and the world, please get out, and lets try to move forward so we can do what we know is the right thing, and start debating about policy, and not people's mistakes, and make room for who could be the next great leader in the history of this world. Don't kid yourself. No politicians care about the country.
|
|
|
Post by stevegamer on May 5, 2008 18:45:15 GMT -4
Hillary Clinton doesn't care much about anything except Hillary Clinton. Chelsea's on her list, but I think Bill comes and goes off it.
Basically, we've got 3 possibilities right now, and Clinton is the one that I'm most afraid of - it's 4-8 more years of Bush: personal power, ego, vendetta, and "ain't I great" put ahead of the nation's issues.
I feel that either Obama or McCain will be a better choice. If Clinton beats Obama, a "Democrats for McCain" sign goes up in my front yard as soon as I can get one.
Otherwise, the Obama sign goes back up.
|
|
|
Post by J-Sav on May 5, 2008 20:09:36 GMT -4
Hillary Clinton doesn't care much about anything except Hillary Clinton. Chelsea's on her list, but I think Bill comes and goes off it. Basically, we've got 3 possibilities right now, and Clinton is the one that I'm most afraid of - it's 4-8 more years of Bush: personal power, ego, vendetta, and "ain't I great" put ahead of the nation's issues. I feel that either Obama or McCain will be a better choice. If Clinton beats Obama, a "Democrats for McCain" sign goes up in my front yard as soon as I can get one. Otherwise, the Obama sign goes back up. I 100% agree. I'm an independent, but I seriously fear for this country if Clinton is the next president. I don't know how people could be so gulable to believe this hot air that comes out of her mouth. She's destroying the party, and she doesn't care. Of course she's always going to get votes, because of her name and stature, but she's pulling this party, and this country apart. Even though Obama and McCain have the perception that they are far left and far right, they are more closely in the middle than people think. But the main thing is that if it is an Obama-McCain election, this negativity will go away, and start debating on issues, rather than trying to bring someone down. And why is she going on the Factor? She's trying to pander to the right wingers, because her values are more closely to them, when she's fronting like she's liberal. I don't understand how people could be duped by this woman. She sounds like my mother trying to tell me what to do, and I hate that. But that's not the main reason. She's untrustworthy, and power hungry, and why you don't leave Bill after all the times he cheated on her is for one reason only. Power. And that's sad, and I would have more respect for her if she would of left him.
|
|
|
Post by Bosoxi on May 5, 2008 20:09:44 GMT -4
am i missing something with this gas tax relief the politicians want to impose?? so this will bring the price of gas down(a little) making people drive more making gas demand go up and making the price even higher ...not bad count me in lol
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on May 5, 2008 20:49:00 GMT -4
Hey Bosoxi, are you trying to get to a serious topic? There's no room for a serious discussion in a election campaign so please stop. What's next? You gonna try to use arguments that make sense? Please, give me a break...
Seriously, the price of the barrell of crude is what every candidate should be worried about. Because US political stability is crucial in world economics and right now the interest rates, the oil prices, the cereals prices etc are all fucked up. And oil prices are at the center of everything these days. Maybe that's what some saw in the horizon years ago and that's the true reason for the war on Iraq. Because all I see is luxury cities being build daily on the emirates and other exporting countries. The price keeps hitting record values every day and the OPEC already admited the price was out of their control and if the especulation continues, it might hit the unthinkable $200 per barrel. Now if we add that to the rise in essencial cereals much due to the search for alternative fuels, the world might be heading to the biggest economic crises in a long while. Of course that the poorer countries, mainly in africa, are the ones that will really starve, but it will hurt everybody.
|
|
|
Post by Bosoxi on May 5, 2008 20:59:54 GMT -4
the sad thing is why would they care the price of the barrell of crude the higher it goes the richer they become ..i only think its going up now because bush(owning oil companies)is making hes final grab at cash before he leaves lol..and isn't funny that the only altenative this country (the richest in the world) can come up with is corn ..so now wipe out corn crops for fuel and we have higher prices for food ..all the american car makers are losing money hand over fist you think they would want to be the first car maker to come out with a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon but noooooooooo why would they want to do that
|
|
|
Post by J-Sav on May 5, 2008 22:05:53 GMT -4
Great point Jogo. Couldn't agree more. But another thing about Sen. Clinton, she voted against drilling in Alaska, and Nuclear power alternatives, that could of been useful now. You know why? Because she's in the pocket of oil companies. How do you think that huge donation and connection with Saudi princes for the Clinton library comes into play? I'm telling you, she's dirty, and I would not want her as the president. Not to be talking about conspiracy, but it's crazy that Obama has really fell off in recent months, when he was cruising along, and it was apparent that he was the nominee, and all of a sudden, the fear of voting for him cam in play, and the powers to be started pumping fear into people, and now you're seeing people vote out of fear, because of his associations. But there is no politician in this nation, that doesn't have associations with questionable people. Hillary Clinton's associations are by far more shady then a pastor in a black church just blurting out bullshit to please the people, and get a reaction. People shouldn't fear Obama, because it is obvious that this man has no ill will of any kind toward people, and associating with this pastor was more of a political move to gain respect and notoriety with the black community in Chicago, and to understand the black experience in America, which he wasn't something he understood growing up. He came from the grassroots to become a leader, and that is an American story. More American than having everything handed to you on a silver platter, which 70% of Americans can't understand. And what I mean about political move, is something every politician does, and that's participate in functions within their constituency, which in this case for Obama, was attending Wright's church, which was obviously, the biggest thing to do in his constituency. My point is that Obama is the people's president. And people who support him are folks who understand the change that can happen in the country, and more importantly, in this world, which I believe needs a man like him to change it. There are forces out there who really don't want this man president, and one reason is that he doesn't take money from lobbyist, and he is a man that does tell the truth, and it is obvious when the latest ploy, which Sen. Clinton is using with the gas tax, is more evidence that she will say anything to win, and only represents whatever is popular at the time, and Obama tells the truth by stating that tax would not help anything. I don't want a president that doesn't make hard decisions, and value system is based on what's popular of the time. She needs to bow out gracefully, and let the people of this country speak, which is we are ready for a change. A change in politics. A change in how we're respected in the world. And how to be a model for this world, which America should be. Obama represents everything that is America. Obama is symbolic to what this country represents. A man of mix races, black and white, and the relationship that has been upon these two races throughout our proud, but embarrassing moments, that built this country to where it is today. Black people and white people is as American as apple pie. Together, we have built this great country. We have fought as brothers in war to defend this country; from the Civil War to Iraq. And to have a man who represents these two races is symbolic, which seems like we're in a dire need for that. We need to come together, and better this nation, and better this world. We have school shootings, inflation, terrorism, famine, genocide, things that are really horrible. And all of this has happened under the watch of the same Washington politics. It is time for change, and we should not fear it. Stop and think that our stature has declined because of the same politicians we send to Washington, and nothing gets done. Obama would be a big change, but a change that is much needed, and the world would respect us and we would send a message to the world that we're ready to restore our image as the greatest country in the world.
Sorry, had to get somthing off my chest LOL.
|
|