PDA

View Full Version : THEE NYG SWAG THREAD



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 [442] 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 04:37 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<FONT color=#0000ff> everyone would be high</FONT> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


really? based on what. I never could understand that

I mean if ur talkin on a level of some people just get addicted to everything then i'd have to go back to Davens point and say well theres people addicted to cheeseburgers and video games annd it takes over their lives
Precisely, that's why I was specific to say "some" people. Maybe it is purely those some people that it effects so negatively. We all know them--they are the ones in our groups as kids that smoked a little too much, enjoyed getting high a little too much and never materialized into much more than the auto part store delivery guy. I accept that the point can be made that with these particular people alcohol, pills, etc could of been their catalyst instead of pot-possibly.

Matt--other's like yourself are what I perceive to be extremely high functioning for a pot smoker...just sayin.


yea i guess but an alcoholic can be just as big of a lush as a pothead

also the effects of pot vs liqour. All of the drunk driving deaths, **** that happens when people black out

i'd have to say its more dangerous if your comparing the two back to back
You got me there---I have never blacked out from drinking....never. I guess I don't understand that alcoholism at that level, but I have still got pretty ****ed up--hard for me to believe that one can get even more trashed than I have achieved.


i've blacked out like twice in my life</P>


I was straight thinking, market oriented conservative, then when I woke up I was a left wing, big government, anti business, entitlement believing democrat.

it was weird


</P>


Could you drink heavily, black out again andcome back as perfectlynormal please?</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 04:39 PM
that future generations wouldn't comprehend or understand or accept the actually damages of a drug like heroin

Poppy****! of course they would know about the dangers, infact if it was made legal I would think they would have a much greater appreciation for what it does to the human body....Cigerates are a prime example, you can't light up in a crowded area without someone telling you you are killing yourself....it's legal....but EVERYONE knows the dangers...it would be the same for any drug we legalize.


After 30 years of being legal and being able to get it at the corner store it would be like nothing. Its not a moderation drug. Like people can drink and chill out, theres no like well lets go grab a quick needle before we go to the game.


I completely disagree, the dangers would be WELL known.


ur really not taking into account by it being legal how generally accepted it would be

it would be just another thing in Dare class


I am taking that into account Matt.....I think what you don't understand is that something being socially acceptable....and something being popular are completely separate issues.

It's socially acceptable for a guy to drink a "Zima" at a bar...or to order a "Fuzzy Navel" how many actually do it?

just because it becomes legal does not necessarily mean it will become more popular....you are combining the two...I am not that's the main difference.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:40 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:44 PM
that future generations wouldn't comprehend or understand or accept the actually damages of a drug like heroin

Poppy****! of course they would know about the dangers, infact if it was made legal I would think they would have a much greater appreciation for what it does to the human body....Cigerates are a prime example, you can't light up in a crowded area without someone telling you you are killing yourself....it's legal....but EVERYONE knows the dangers...it would be the same for any drug we legalize.


After 30 years of being legal and being able to get it at the corner store it would be like nothing. Its not a moderation drug. Like people can drink and chill out, theres no like well lets go grab a quick needle before we go to the game.


I completely disagree, the dangers would be WELL known.


ur really not taking into account by it being legal how generally accepted it would be

it would be just another thing in Dare class


I am taking that into account Matt.....I think what you don't understand is that something being socially acceptable....and something being popular are completely separate issues.

It's socially acceptable for a guy to drink a "Zima" at a bar...or to order a "Fuzzy Navel" how many actually do it?

just because it becomes legal does not necessarily mean it will become more popular....you are combining the two...I am not that's the main difference.


not for nothing, i'd say men drinking fem drinks has DEFINITLY gone up from different areas of time....

not you or you boys, but have you ever seen some of these fruit bags?

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 04:44 PM
that future generations wouldn't comprehend or understand or accept the actually damages of a drug like heroin

Poppy****! of course they would know about the dangers, infact if it was made legal I would think they would have a much greater appreciation for what it does to the human body....Cigerates are a prime example, you can't light up in a crowded area without someone telling you you are killing yourself....it's legal....but EVERYONE knows the dangers...it would be the same for any drug we legalize.


After 30 years of being legal and being able to get it at the corner store it would be like nothing. Its not a moderation drug. Like people can drink and chill out, theres no like well lets go grab a quick needle before we go to the game.


<u>I completely disagree</u>, the dangers would be WELL known.
i think future generations will certainly have a better understanding of all drugs. but how can you disagree that heroin is not a moderation drug daven? heroin is highly addicting. especially the oxy and roxys and all that crap. all opiates are. look what that couple on long island did just cause they needed a fix

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 04:44 PM
http://i.imgur.com/wcR2M.jpg

But Transparency right?....they are going to clean out the corruption in Washington...


lol.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 04:46 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</P>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</P>


Those guys?</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:47 PM
http://i.imgur.com/wcR2M.jpg

But Transparency right?....they are going to clean out the corruption in Washington...


lol.


just cuz the big circle is black doesn't mean that its obams big circle

u racist

[:P]

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:49 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</p>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</p>


Those guys?</p>

lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point

lawl
07-22-2011, 04:49 PM
Drugs come down to personal responsibility. Shooting someone while you're high is a crime, and understandably so, but why is it a crime to do the drug?</P>


</P>


Survival of the fittest, if you wanna suck **** for crack, then hey it sucks to be you.</P>


</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:50 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</p>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</p>


Those guys?</p>

lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:50 PM
Drugs come down to personal responsibility. Shooting someone while you're high is a crime, and understandably so, but why is it a crime to do the drug?</p>


</p>


Survival of the fittest, if you wanna suck **** for crack, then hey it sucks to be you.</p>


</p>

i agree to an extent... but its because of the relationship hard drug addicts have iwth violence is part of it

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:51 PM
i've got to be honest.. im kind of happy coke ain't legal and at every corner store

i dont think i'd be able to avoid it if it was in my face all the time. Imagine running out of cigs at the bar and running to 7-11 and they have a gram of coke on sale

yea like tell me i ain't buying tha tlol

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 04:52 PM
i think future generations will certainly have a better understanding of all drugs. but how can you disagree that heroin is not a moderation drug daven? heroin is highly addicting. especially the oxy and roxys and all that crap. all opiates are. look what that couple on long island did just cause they needed a fix


If Future generation will have a better understanding of the drugs that are available....then when they become addicted and ruin their life is it the DRUGS fault? or THEIR Fault.

Yes some drugs are more addictive or more dangerous then others...and everyone will KNOW that...if they want to do Herion they will know what they are getting into...that's there decision to make and they need to take responsibility for their decision.

Knowing what it will do to you is enough for most people to say no way...the people who decide to go for it...would have gone for something else anyhow is more point i guess....whether they need a fix or another shot violence is violence....and only a certain few people will react that way, I don't believe the substance itself creates the crime/violence...I believe the people using them do....

a great analogy is GUNS, Guns are very dangerous....but they are a natural right, sure you have to sign up for a license....maybe it should be the same way for certain drugs...just like you have to sign waivers to eat certain foods...or to sky dive or bungee.....point is there are plenty of activities and "things" that are VERY dangerous....you can't blame the "things" though...the blame always falls to the individual in my opinion.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:54 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 04:57 PM
Drugs come down to personal responsibility. Shooting someone while you're high is a crime, and understandably so, but why is it a crime to do the drug?</p>


</p>


Survival of the fittest, if you wanna suck **** for crack, then hey it sucks to be you.</p>


</p>

i agree to an extent... but its because of the relationship hard drug addicts have iwth violence is part of it


the point is those people that have a hard drug addiction and are violent...would be that way no matter what...it would be a different drug or addiction....it's not the gun or the drug that's the problem...it's the PERSON...

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 04:57 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</P>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</P>


Those guys?</P>




lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point
</P>


And yet you took down your sig.</P>


Obviously you know the truth. We were 5 games back on April 15th and now we are 2 games up.</P>


</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:58 PM
Drugs come down to personal responsibility. Shooting someone while you're high is a crime, and understandably so, but why is it a crime to do the drug?</p>


</p>


Survival of the fittest, if you wanna suck **** for crack, then hey it sucks to be you.</p>


</p>

i agree to an extent... but its because of the relationship hard drug addicts have iwth violence is part of it


the point is those people that have a hard drug addiction and are violent...would be that way no matter what...it would be a different drug or addiction....it's not the gun or the drug that's the problem...it's the PERSON...


like i said before, our whole disagreement comes down to the fact that we differ by thinking the amount of users would spike, you think it would stay the same

Can you picture having a few picking up stogues at the store and you can buy some blow lol....

like dude, cmon

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 04:59 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</p>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</p>


Those guys?</p>




lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point
</p>


And yet you took down your sig.</p>


Obviously you know the truth. We were 5 games back on April 15th and now we are 2 games up.</p>


</p>

somebody in TAGF said they liked my oldsig

don't flatter urself pappy. I do have a word docuement with all of ur prediction copied and pasted into it with a date

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:02 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</P>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</P>


Those guys?</P>




lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point
</P>


And yet you took down your sig.</P>


Obviously you know the truth. We were 5 games back on April 15th and now we are 2 games up.</P>


</P>




somebody in TAGF said they liked my oldsig

don't flatter urself pappy. I do have a word docuement with all of ur prediction copied and pasted into it with a date
</P>


That one about Papi never doing steroids comes to mind</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:03 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</p>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</p>


Those guys?</p>




lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point
</p>


And yet you took down your sig.</p>


Obviously you know the truth. We were 5 games back on April 15th and now we are 2 games up.</p>


</p>




somebody in TAGF said they liked my oldsig

don't flatter urself pappy. I do have a word docuement with all of ur prediction copied and pasted into it with a date
</p>


That one about Papi never doing steroids comes to mind</p>

dont worr yi'l drop it on him right before the yankees - giants WS

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:04 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot


I'm not sure eitherway....but mostly yeah you pretty much have it, I'm taking the position of...if we tried it and numbers didn't spike...then it's ALL positive...without a spike you have less crime (less drug dealers) you have safer substances....AND money towards the deficit to boot....win/win....and you have to understand that there is are REAL reasons that suggest that that could be the outcome....on the other hand there IS the possibility that it could go the other way like you suggest, it could end up causing more addiction...more crime.

the "real" crux of the issue...which I mentioned before is that we can't possibly know until we try it....but once we try it it's impossible to over turn....(just like Prohibition)

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:06 PM
like i said before, our whole disagreement comes down to the fact that we differ by thinking the amount of users would spike, you think it would stay the same

Can you picture having a few picking up stogues at the store and you can buy some blow lol....

like dude, cmon


I honestly don't think I would have done much more then I did when I was doing it if it was available at 7-11.

when I used to buy it I would get enough to last for what ever situation I was going to that made me think it was a good Idea to bring it....but after that situation ended I generally could save the left overs forever...

I KNOW there are people that can not do that....but with me that's how it was.

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:07 PM
dont worr yi'l drop it on him right before the yankees - giants WS
</P>


</P>


You guys need an arm</P>

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 05:08 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</P>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</P>


Those guys?</P>




lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point
</P>


And yet you took down your sig.</P>


Obviously you know the truth. We were 5 games back on April 15th and now we are 2 games up.</P>


</P>




somebody in TAGF said they liked my oldsig

don't flatter urself pappy. I do have a word docuement with all of ur prediction copied and pasted into it with a date
</P>


That one about Papi never doing steroids comes to mind</P>




dont worr yi'l drop it on him right before the yankees - giants WS
</P>


Right, just happened to drop it when the Sox went to first place to stay.</P>


You're not better than that.</P>

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 05:08 PM
dont worr yi'l drop it on him right before the yankees - giants WS
</P>


</P>


You guys need an arm</P>


</P>


And you guys need some bats.</P>

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 05:09 PM
dont worr yi'l drop it on him right before the yankees - giants WS
</p>


</p>


You guys need an arm</p>we need a bat.

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:11 PM
dont worr yi'l drop it on him right before the yankees - giants WS
</P>


</P>


You guys need an arm</P>


</P>


And you guys need some bats.</P>


</P>


we're fine. 1 or 2 runs a game is all we need.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:13 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot


I'm not sure eitherway....but mostly yeah you pretty much have it, I'm taking the position of...if we tried it and numbers didn't spike...then it's ALL positive...without a spike you have less crime (less drug dealers) you have safer substances....AND money towards the deficit to boot....win/win....and you have to understand that there is are REAL reasons that suggest that that could be the outcome....on the other hand there IS the possibility that it could go the other way like you suggest, it could end up causing more addiction...more crime.

the "real" crux of the issue...which I mentioned before is that we can't possibly know until we try it....but once we try it it's impossible to over turn....(just like Prohibition)


well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.

**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:15 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot


I'm not sure eitherway....but mostly yeah you pretty much have it, I'm taking the position of...if we tried it and numbers didn't spike...then it's ALL positive...without a spike you have less crime (less drug dealers) you have safer substances....AND money towards the deficit to boot....win/win....and you have to understand that there is are REAL reasons that suggest that that could be the outcome....on the other hand there IS the possibility that it could go the other way like you suggest, it could end up causing more addiction...more crime.

the "real" crux of the issue...which I mentioned before is that we can't possibly know until we try it....but once we try it it's impossible to over turn....(just like Prohibition)


well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.

**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad


</P>


It shouldnt be the gov's job to protect you from yourself. If someone allows themself to become an addict, oh well.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:15 PM
like i said before, our whole disagreement comes down to the fact that we differ by thinking the amount of users would spike, you think it would stay the same

Can you picture having a few picking up stogues at the store and you can buy some blow lol....

like dude, cmon


I honestly don't think I would have done much more then I did when I was doing it if it was available at 7-11.

when I used to buy it I would get enough to last for what ever situation I was going to that made me think it was a good Idea to bring it....but after that situation ended I generally could save the left overs forever...

I KNOW there are people that can not do that....but with me that's how it was.


lol when i did it i would always try to limit myself, but then when ur wired at 3 am and got some broads at thecrib and the booze flows like win... def hopped on the phone trying to make moves

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:16 PM
I may come back a red sock fan like you

no way.... i'll stay

https://sites.google.com/a/vanbrunts.com/www/aces_poker_chips.gif
</p>


You mean the first place Red Sox. The "57-27, by far the best record in baseballsince week two" Red Sox?</p>


Those guys?</p>




lol too bad the whole season counts and u only have 2 a game better season than the yanks - to this point
</p>


And yet you took down your sig.</p>


Obviously you know the truth. We were 5 games back on April 15th and now we are 2 games up.</p>


</p>




somebody in TAGF said they liked my oldsig

don't flatter urself pappy. I do have a word docuement with all of ur prediction copied and pasted into it with a date
</p>


That one about Papi never doing steroids comes to mind</p>




dont worr yi'l drop it on him right before the yankees - giants WS
</p>


Right, just happened to drop it when the Sox went to first place to stay.</p>


You're not better than that.</p>

wasn't at all

don't tell lies its unbecoming

(thats my moorehead impression)

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:17 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot


I'm not sure eitherway....but mostly yeah you pretty much have it, I'm taking the position of...if we tried it and numbers didn't spike...then it's ALL positive...without a spike you have less crime (less drug dealers) you have safer substances....AND money towards the deficit to boot....win/win....and you have to understand that there is are REAL reasons that suggest that that could be the outcome....on the other hand there IS the possibility that it could go the other way like you suggest, it could end up causing more addiction...more crime.

the "real" crux of the issue...which I mentioned before is that we can't possibly know until we try it....but once we try it it's impossible to over turn....(just like Prohibition)


well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.

**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad


</p>


It shouldnt be the gov's job to protect you from yourself. If someone allows themself to become an addict, oh well.</p>

so then by that comment essentially you find all laws useless

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:21 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot


I'm not sure eitherway....but mostly yeah you pretty much have it, I'm taking the position of...if we tried it and numbers didn't spike...then it's ALL positive...without a spike you have less crime (less drug dealers) you have safer substances....AND money towards the deficit to boot....win/win....and you have to understand that there is are REAL reasons that suggest that that could be the outcome....on the other hand there IS the possibility that it could go the other way like you suggest, it could end up causing more addiction...more crime.

the "real" crux of the issue...which I mentioned before is that we can't possibly know until we try it....but once we try it it's impossible to over turn....(just like Prohibition)


well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.

**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad


</p>


It shouldnt be the gov's job to protect you from yourself. If someone allows themself to become an addict, oh well.</p>

so then by that comment essentially you find all laws useless


or should i say.. .LAWLs?!

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:23 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot


I'm not sure eitherway....but mostly yeah you pretty much have it, I'm taking the position of...if we tried it and numbers didn't spike...then it's ALL positive...without a spike you have less crime (less drug dealers) you have safer substances....AND money towards the deficit to boot....win/win....and you have to understand that there is are REAL reasons that suggest that that could be the outcome....on the other hand there IS the possibility that it could go the other way like you suggest, it could end up causing more addiction...more crime.

the "real" crux of the issue...which I mentioned before is that we can't possibly know until we try it....but once we try it it's impossible to over turn....(just like Prohibition)


well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.

**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad


</P>


It shouldnt be the gov's job to protect you from yourself. If someone allows themself to become an addict, oh well.</P>




so then by that comment essentially you find all laws useless
</P>


Right, because someone else shooting you is the same as the government protecting you from yourself.</P>


There's a brazillian more examples I can provide you with.(had to do it)</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:26 PM
well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.


Yeah...I really don't know what would happen it's hard to tell, there is <span class="hw">precedence that shows when things that were previously thought as edgy or taboo become common place they actually become LESS popular...but it's hard to say with drugs.</span>


**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad

See that's the thing....back then it was hard to say no because you didn't know the next time it was going to be available....if you know...that you can always just go down the block to pick some up it, I don't think it'd be as hard to say no too.

for example...when you were 16-18 and you found some Alcohol you were drinking...you were definitely drinking and getting drunk, now that you are 25+ whatever...and you have beer in your fridge...there are times when you say....nah no reason to get drunk tonight...got work tomorrow...i'll just have a sprite or something.

Back when Beer was difficult to obtain you would never turn it down...now that it's always right there it's not as much as a draw right?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:26 PM
basically daven everything we disagree on comes down to this

u think the numbers wouldn't spike of users and i do

with that everything else is moot


I'm not sure eitherway....but mostly yeah you pretty much have it, I'm taking the position of...if we tried it and numbers didn't spike...then it's ALL positive...without a spike you have less crime (less drug dealers) you have safer substances....AND money towards the deficit to boot....win/win....and you have to understand that there is are REAL reasons that suggest that that could be the outcome....on the other hand there IS the possibility that it could go the other way like you suggest, it could end up causing more addiction...more crime.

the "real" crux of the issue...which I mentioned before is that we can't possibly know until we try it....but once we try it it's impossible to over turn....(just like Prohibition)


well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.

**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad


</p>


It shouldnt be the gov's job to protect you from yourself. If someone allows themself to become an addict, oh well.</p>




so then by that comment essentially you find all laws useless
</p>


Right, because someone else shooting you is the same as the government protecting you from yourself.</p>


There's a brazillian more examples I can provide you with.(had to do it)</p>

lol i really didn't get it at first

that was a fail on my part hahahahahaha

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:30 PM
well i'd agree that if it happened and numbers didn't spike then it is what it is. I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that it wouldn't spike.


Yeah...I really don't know what would happen it's hard to tell, there is <span class="hw">precedence that shows when things that were previously thought as edgy or taboo become common place they actually become LESS popular...but it's hard to say with drugs.</span>


**** man its hard to say no to a couple of lines of blow in my own experience (especially when reallly really drunk). But if it was around me everytime i went to the store, my habit would definitly be bad

See that's the thing....back then it was hard to say no because you didn't know the next time it was going to be available....if you know...that you can always just go down the block to pick some up it, I don't think it'd be as hard to say no too.

for example...when you were 16-18 and you found some Alcohol you were drinking...you were definitely drinking and getting drunk, now that you are 25+ whatever...and you have beer in your fridge...there are times when you say....nah no reason to get drunk tonight...got work tomorrow...i'll just have a sprite or something.

Back when Beer was difficult to obtain you would never turn it down...now that it's always right there it's not as much as a draw right?


yea but i think that for something like liqour it probably spiked real quick and may of evened out because its just not as naturally addicting... I think booze can get old for the average person. I think coke is addicting no matter who u are if u were to test it out

i just think the drugs we're talking baout is a complete different ballgame

well see i never really had too much of a problem with a dealer in my prime lol. I knew it was kind of always available... i think i would make it as generic as a couple of beers hanging out type thing

again i just can't put the same addiction level with booze and coke

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:31 PM
Right, because someone else shooting you is the same as the government protecting you from yourself.</p>


There's a brazillian more examples I can provide you with.(had to do it)</p>

the real issue Lawl is what many take as fact/common sense...but I don't necessarily.

The see legalizing drugs as a way to cause more addiction...addiction leads to more violent crime...thus legalizing drugs will lead to more violent crime thus the government allowing drugs to be legalized would be bad for society.

the thing is I don't see legalizing drugs necessarily leading to more addiction, I believe addiction lies in the person...not the drug....not many others seem to see it that way.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:32 PM
Right, because someone else shooting you is the same as the government protecting you from yourself.</p>


There's a brazillian more examples I can provide you with.(had to do it)</p>

the real issue Lawl is what many take as fact/common sense...but I don't necessarily.

The see legalizing drugs as a way to cause more addiction...addiction leads to more violent crime...thus legalizing drugs will lead to more violent crime thus the government allowing drugs to be legalized would be bad for society.

the thing is I don't see legalizing drugs necessarily leading to more addiction, I believe addiction lies in the person...not the drug....not many others seem to see it that way.



i just think having everything accessible to everybody would have more people trying and getting hooked

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:34 PM
yea but i think that for something like liqour it probably spiked real quick and may of evened out because its just not as naturally addicting... I think booze can get old for the average person. I think coke is addicting no matter who u are if u were to test it out

i just think the drugs we're talking baout is a complete different ballgame

well see i never really had too much of a problem with a dealer in my prime lol. I knew it was kind of always available... i think i would make it as generic as a couple of beers hanging out type thing

again i just can't put the same addiction level with booze and coke




the real difference is you attribute addiction to the substance I attribute it to the person.

say I tried H tomorrow and it was ****ing AMAZING....if it was that good, and I started to notice I was changing the way I was living in order to get some I'm confident I would be able to stop myself...

so in my opinion if you get addicted to the point where its ruining your life it's on you...not on the drug...if you can't recognize you are ruining your life it's a you problem.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:35 PM
yea but i think that for something like liqour it probably spiked real quick and may of evened out because its just not as naturally addicting... I think booze can get old for the average person. I think coke is addicting no matter who u are if u were to test it out

i just think the drugs we're talking baout is a complete different ballgame

well see i never really had too much of a problem with a dealer in my prime lol. I knew it was kind of always available... i think i would make it as generic as a couple of beers hanging out type thing

again i just can't put the same addiction level with booze and coke




the real difference is you attribute addiction to the substance I attribute it to the person.

say I tried H tomorrow and it was ****ing AMAZING....if it was that good, and I started to notice I was changing the way I was living in order to get some I'm confident I would be able to stop myself...

so in my opinion if you get addicted to the point where its ruining your life it's on you...not on the drug...if you can't recognize you are ruining your life it's a you problem.


yea but any person that was ever addicted to it would tell u that they have the same thoughts as they were doing it

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:36 PM
i just think having everything accessible to everybody would have more people trying and getting hooked

I'm not saying that's not a possibility....but I do see other possibilities...like I said before...sometimes people do things because it's edgy or taboo...if it's being sold in CVS it's no longer edgy or taboo....thus many people who may have done it to be cool may never even start..

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:37 PM
and alot more people would ruin their lives i think... regardless if its their own lack of control or not

just don't think our general people are too great of people as it is... having them all sstrung out doesn't sound any better

especially just to pay off some debt lol

the american people themselves would be in even worse debt

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:38 PM
yea but any person that was ever addicted to it would tell u that they have the same thoughts as they were doing it

obviously, but having the thoughts is different then actually following through with it, I have confidence that I would be able to pull myself out of it if I noticed it was effecting my life...I could be wrong....but I have that confidence....and I have faith that "most" people could....the people that can't should know that...and they shouldn't get involved with it in the first place.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:39 PM
i just think having everything accessible to everybody would have more people trying and getting hooked

I'm not saying that's not a possibility....but I do see other possibilities...like I said before...sometimes people do things because it's edgy or taboo...if it's being sold in CVS it's no longer edgy or taboo....thus many people who may have done it to be cool may never even start..


people also do things because its popular

i'd say the popularity of drugs would absolutely sky rocket if they were legal

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:41 PM
Right, because someone else shooting you is the same as the government protecting you from yourself.</P>


There's a brazillian more examples I can provide you with.(had to do it)</P>




the real issue Lawl is what many take as fact/common sense...but I don't necessarily.

The see legalizing drugs as a way to cause more addiction...addiction leads to more violent crime...thus legalizing drugs will lead to more violent crime thus the government allowing drugs to be legalized would be bad for society.

the thing is I don't see legalizing drugs necessarily leading to more addiction, I believe addiction lies in the person...not the drug....not many others seem to see it that way.

</P>


If drugs were legal, what happens to all the south american drug lords? what happens to all the people in the government that cover up them exporting drugs into america? what happens to all the drug dealers, and runners, etc? A whole hell of alot of illegal business and violence all of a sudden ceases to exist.</P>


If drugs were legalized there would definitely be an age limit put on it, but since many drugs are more dangerous to you than alcohol, the laws against underage usage and providing of underage people would need to be extremely harsh when compared to that of alcohol laws. If you don't do this I would definitely think you would see a spike in usage in HS kids, but by doing so I dont think it would increase much at all since the inherent risks of drug usage are pretty well known by even the dumbest of kids. </P>


</P>


Also as Matt proposes when you're lit and hit up the gas station after a night at the bar, well, exactly what would be wrong with that?</P>

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:42 PM
i just think having everything accessible to everybody would have more people trying and getting hooked

I'm not saying that's not a possibility....but I do see other possibilities...like I said before...sometimes people do things because it's edgy or taboo...if it's being sold in CVS it's no longer edgy or taboo....thus many people who may have done it to be cool may never even start..


people also do things because its popular

i'd say the popularity of drugs would absolutely sky rocket if they were legal
</P>


maybe short term, </P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:45 PM
i just think having everything accessible to everybody would have more people trying and getting hooked

I'm not saying that's not a possibility....but I do see other possibilities...like I said before...sometimes people do things because it's edgy or taboo...if it's being sold in CVS it's no longer edgy or taboo....thus many people who may have done it to be cool may never even start..


people also do things because its popular

i'd say the popularity of drugs would absolutely sky rocket if they were legal
</p>


maybe short term, </p>

i agree that the initial spike of being popular short term would be short, but i also think many addictions would be created coming out of it

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:46 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:47 PM
i just think having everything accessible to everybody would have more people trying and getting hooked

I'm not saying that's not a possibility....but I do see other possibilities...like I said before...sometimes people do things because it's edgy or taboo...if it's being sold in CVS it's no longer edgy or taboo....thus many people who may have done it to be cool may never even start..


people also do things because its popular

i'd say the popularity of drugs would absolutely sky rocket if they were legal
</p>


maybe short term, </p>

Yeah this is my thinking....short term you might see a bit of a spike because people would be like, cool now I can try this without having to worry about going to jail etc etc...

but the first time they miss work cause they are ****ed up....or lose 100$ because they did something stupid while on it....they would say **** that...it's not worth it and stop...

Addicts are Addicts because they let their life fall apart and only care about the drug...I'm sure there are plenty of functional drug users that use it in social situations but don't let it effect their life...I even know a couple...2 Lawyers in particular.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 05:51 PM
i just think having everything accessible to everybody would have more people trying and getting hooked

I'm not saying that's not a possibility....but I do see other possibilities...like I said before...sometimes people do things because it's edgy or taboo...if it's being sold in CVS it's no longer edgy or taboo....thus many people who may have done it to be cool may never even start..


people also do things because its popular

i'd say the popularity of drugs would absolutely sky rocket if they were legal
</p>


maybe short term, </p>

Yeah this is my thinking....short term you might see a bit of a spike because people would be like, cool now I can try this without having to worry about going to jail etc etc...

but the first time they miss work cause they are ****ed up....or lose 100$ because they did something stupid while on it....they would say **** that...it's not worth it and stop...

Addicts are Addicts because they let their life fall apart and only care about the drug...I'm sure there are plenty of functional drug users that use it in social situations but don't let it effect their life...I even know a couple...2 Lawyers in particular.


ehh thats kinda week lol

first time they miss work or lose 100 bucks? lol cmon we've all done stupid **** at the bar and strip clubs time after time lol

lawl
07-22-2011, 05:55 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 05:56 PM
ehh thats kinda week lol

first time they miss work or lose 100 bucks? lol cmon we've all done stupid **** at the bar and strip clubs time after time lol


No matt you and me have :P not everyone...

but everyone has their limit...that's the point...maybe for someone they'd have to lose their job before it became apparent for them that they need to stop...but I'd bet a large percentage of the people that go...."cool I can do this and not get arrested now" will quit shortly there after because of something that happens due to the drug use....others will just use it socially and not have any problems...they will use it like alcohol or smokes.....will some become addicted? sure...but It is my opinion that the ones that get addicted and end up in jail or worse would have ended up in that same situation one way or another regardless of the drug.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 05:58 PM
ehh thats kinda week lol

first time they miss work or lose 100 bucks? lol cmon we've all done stupid **** at the bar and strip clubs time after time lol


No matt you and me have :P not everyone...

but everyone has their limit...that's the point...maybe for someone they'd have to lose their job before it became apparent for them that they need to stop...but I'd bet a large percentage of the people that go...."cool I can do this and not get arrested now" will quit shortly there after because of something that happens due to the drug use....others will just use it socially and not have any problems...they will use it like alcohol or smokes.....will some become addicted? sure...but It is my opinion that the ones that get addicted and end up in jail or worse would have ended up in that same situation one way or another regardless of the drug.
Beautiful woman with no clothes on=LT doing stupid things.

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 06:00 PM
Right, because someone else shooting you is the same as the government protecting you from yourself.</p>


There's a brazillian more examples I can provide you with.(had to do it)</p>




the real issue Lawl is what many take as fact/common sense...but I don't necessarily.

The see legalizing drugs as a way to cause more addiction...addiction leads to more violent crime...thus legalizing drugs will lead to more violent crime thus the government allowing drugs to be legalized would be bad for society.

the thing is I don't see legalizing drugs necessarily leading to more addiction, I believe addiction lies in the person...not the drug....not many others seem to see it that way.

</p>


<font color="#0000FF">If drugs were legal, what happens to all the south american drug lords? what happens to all the people in the government that cover up them exporting drugs into america? what happens to all the drug dealers, and runners, etc? A whole hell of alot of illegal business and violence all of a sudden ceases to exist.</font></p>


If drugs were legalized there would definitely be an age limit put on it, but since many drugs are more dangerous to you than alcohol, the laws against underage usage and providing of underage people would need to be extremely harsh when compared to that of alcohol laws. If you don't do this I would definitely think you would see a spike in usage in HS kids, but by doing so I dont think it would increase much at all since the inherent risks of drug usage are pretty well known by even the dumbest of kids. </p>


</p>


Also as Matt proposes when you're lit and hit up the gas station after a night at the bar, well, exactly what would be wrong with that?</p>

these are all extremely good points by the way, it's hard to argue against a lot of this.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 06:00 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</p>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</p>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </p>

but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 06:01 PM
ehh thats kinda week lol

first time they miss work or lose 100 bucks? lol cmon we've all done stupid **** at the bar and strip clubs time after time lol


No matt you and me have :P not everyone...

but everyone has their limit...that's the point...maybe for someone they'd have to lose their job before it became apparent for them that they need to stop...but I'd bet a large percentage of the people that go...."cool I can do this and not get arrested now" will quit shortly there after because of something that happens due to the drug use....others will just use it socially and not have any problems...they will use it like alcohol or smokes.....will some become addicted? sure...but It is my opinion that the ones that get addicted and end up in jail or worse would have ended up in that same situation one way or another regardless of the drug.
Beautiful men with no clothes on=LT doing stupid things.

ewwwwwww

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 06:07 PM
Right, because someone else shooting you is the same as the government protecting you from yourself.</p>


There's a brazillian more examples I can provide you with.(had to do it)</p>




the real issue Lawl is what many take as fact/common sense...but I don't necessarily.

The see legalizing drugs as a way to cause more addiction...addiction leads to more violent crime...thus legalizing drugs will lead to more violent crime thus the government allowing drugs to be legalized would be bad for society.

the thing is I don't see legalizing drugs necessarily leading to more addiction, I believe addiction lies in the person...not the drug....not many others seem to see it that way.

</p>


<font color="#0000ff">If drugs were legal, what happens to all the south american drug lords? what happens to all the people in the government that cover up them exporting drugs into america? what happens to all the drug dealers, and runners, etc? A whole hell of alot of illegal business and violence all of a sudden ceases to exist.</font></p>


If drugs were legalized there would definitely be an age limit put on it, but since many drugs are more dangerous to you than alcohol, the laws against underage usage and providing of underage people would need to be extremely harsh when compared to that of alcohol laws. If you don't do this I would definitely think you would see a spike in usage in HS kids, but by doing so I dont think it would increase much at all since the inherent risks of drug usage are pretty well known by even the dumbest of kids. </p>


</p>


Also as Matt proposes when you're lit and hit up the gas station after a night at the bar, well, exactly what would be wrong with that?</p>

these are all extremely good points by the way, it's hard to argue against a lot of this.


they are

i did say that initially

first glance its like ny06 - it sounds crazy

but once hear reasons some very good ones are made



but im out, 4 day weekend - winning, see u ufckers wed PEACE

lawl
07-22-2011, 06:08 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. The only victim when you take a drug is yourself, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>

ny06
07-23-2011, 12:03 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>

JPizzack
07-23-2011, 12:11 PM
Working on a Saturday =(

JPizzack
07-23-2011, 01:26 PM
bullet impact on a steel wall. pretty cool

http://i.imgur.com/bTE9e.gif

zimonami
07-23-2011, 01:53 PM
bullet impact on a steel wall. pretty cool

http://i.imgur.com/bTE9e.gif</P>


very cool... </P>

jmike
07-23-2011, 01:57 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</p>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</p>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </p>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</p>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</p>


</p>


</p>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <font color="#0000ff">The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</font>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</p>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</p>


</p>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </p>

Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.

lawl
07-23-2011, 05:20 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</p>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</p>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </p>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</p>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</p>


*</p>


*</p>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <font color="#0000ff">The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</font>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</p>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</p>


</p>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </p>

Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.




Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop.

I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.

jmike
07-23-2011, 05:49 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


</P>


That is a terrible arguement and makes no sense. "It's not the nuclear bomb that was hurting anyone, it was the person choosing to set it off. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the government should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others."</P>


Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than your point. By your logic, the government should only ban people and nothing else. So once we get rid of all those damned people, we'll be fine.</P>


However, I agree that the government should not waste it's time and resources chasing those who choose to destroy their lives. Much better things to do (like have baseball players talk about steriods in a pointless hearing, when everyone with 2 functioning brain cells knew they were taking them). My drug of choice was legal, so if someone wants to get wasted they will find a way and by criminalizing it you create more crime.</P>


I was only responding to the scope of victim point. You can't make an arguement that there is only one victim when there isn't.</P>

byron
07-23-2011, 06:52 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


Well then lets just get rid of thefood and drug administration what the hell we them for? That wouldsave ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/inmedicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before theyoperate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and druggingin my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.Today I getby just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there aremany among us whoaren't prefect and **** up....And those who think theyare perfect reallydon't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto theirhouses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke ajointnow even if the gov delivered it right to my door step Isimply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fairyou could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at youbut more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be adisastrous way to fix anything</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 07:49 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.*</P>


Well then lets just get rid of the*food and drug administration what the hell we them for? That would*save ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/in*medicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before they*operate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and drugging*in my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.*Today I get*by just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there are*many among us who*aren't prefect and **** up....And those who think they*are perfect really*don't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto their*houses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....*when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke a*joint*now even if the gov delivered it right to my door step I*simply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fair*you could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at you*but more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be a*disastrous way to fix anything*</P>

what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.

jmike
07-23-2011, 08:00 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


Well then lets just get rid of thefood and drug administration what the hell we them for? That wouldsave ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/inmedicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before theyoperate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and druggingin my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.Today I getby just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there aremany among us whoaren't prefect and **** up....And those who think theyare perfect reallydon't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto theirhouses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke ajointnow even if the gov delivered it right to my door step Isimply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fairyou could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at youbut more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be adisastrous way to fix anything</P>


what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.</P>


It may be your opinion, but it is not a victimless crime. But the victims in this case are irrelevant to the legalization arguement. Only arguement you can make is if it is more or less dangerous to society as a whole to make it legal. If it is legal, then criminals will not be participating in it's trade and reduce crime. People on some drugs are more likely to commit crimes to support their habit. Where does it balance, idk. Are the incidents of crime actually lower in those countries or are just fewer things illegal, that would reduce a crime rate. Like reducing speeding on residential roads by increasing the speed limit. Also, it does not exsist in a vacuum. Are the crime rates lower because drugs are legal or are they able to legalize drugs because crime rates are lower?</P>

jmike
07-23-2011, 08:00 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


Well then lets just get rid of thefood and drug administration what the hell we them for? That wouldsave ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/inmedicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before theyoperate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and druggingin my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.Today I getby just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there aremany among us whoaren't prefect and **** up....And those who think theyare perfect reallydon't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto theirhouses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke ajointnow even if the gov delivered it right to my door step Isimply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fairyou could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at youbut more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be adisastrous way to fix anything</P>


what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.</P>


It may be your opinion, but it is not a victimless crime. But the victims in this case are irrelevant to the legalization arguement. Only arguement you can make is if it is more or less dangerous to society as a whole to make it legal. If it is legal, then criminals will not be participating in it's trade and reduce crime. People on some drugs are more likely to commit crimes to support their habit. Where does it balance, idk. Are the incidents of crime actually lower in those countries or are just fewer things illegal, that would reduce a crime rate. Like reducing speeding on residential roads by increasing the speed limit. Also, it does not exsist in a vacuum. Are the crime rates lower because drugs are legal or are they able to legalize drugs because crime rates are lower?</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 08:13 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.*</P>


Well then lets just get rid of the*food and drug administration what the hell we them for? That would*save ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/in*medicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before they*operate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and drugging*in my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.*Today I get*by just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there are*many among us who*aren't prefect and **** up....And those who think they*are perfect really*don't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto their*houses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....*when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke a*joint*now even if the gov delivered it right to my door step I*simply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fair*you could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at you*but more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be a*disastrous way to fix anything*</P>


what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.</P>


It may be your opinion, but it is not a victimless crime.* But the victims in this case are irrelevant to the legalization arguement.* Only arguement you can make is if it is more or less dangerous to society as a whole to make it legal.* If it is legal, then criminals will not be participating in it's trade and reduce crime.* People on some drugs are more likely to commit crimes to support their habit.* Where does it balance, idk.* Are the incidents of crime actually lower in those countries or are just fewer things illegal, that would reduce a crime rate.* Like reducing speeding on residential roads by increasing the speed limit.* Also, it does not exsist in a vacuum.* Are the crime rates lower because drugs are legal or are they able to legalize drugs because crime rates are lower?</P>

I said it's a victimless crime, not a victimless act...the crime is the buying and selling of drugs that is a victimless crime imo, there is no crime in hurting the ones who love u...I've made my mistakes and hurt loved ones like most of u it sucks...but like I said the govenrment will never take into consideration people being hurt indirectly. You raise a great point about why crime rates are lower...its kind of like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. I don't have an answer for that one.

jmike
07-23-2011, 08:30 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


Well then lets just get rid of thefood and drug administration what the hell we them for? That wouldsave ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/inmedicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before theyoperate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and druggingin my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.Today I getby just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there aremany among us whoaren't prefect and **** up....And those who think theyare perfect reallydon't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto theirhouses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke ajointnow even if the gov delivered it right to my door step Isimply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fairyou could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at youbut more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be adisastrous way to fix anything</P>


what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.</P>


It may be your opinion, but it is not a victimless crime. But the victims in this case are irrelevant to the legalization arguement. Only arguement you can make is if it is more or less dangerous to society as a whole to make it legal. If it is legal, then criminals will not be participating in it's trade and reduce crime. People on some drugs are more likely to commit crimes to support their habit. Where does it balance, idk. Are the incidents of crime actually lower in those countries or are just fewer things illegal, that would reduce a crime rate. Like reducing speeding on residential roads by increasing the speed limit. Also, it does not exsist in a vacuum. Are the crime rates lower because drugs are legal or are they able to legalize drugs because crime rates are lower?</P>


I said it's a victimless crime, not a victimless act...the crime is the buying and selling of drugs that is a victimless crime imo, there is no crime in hurting the ones who love u...I've made my mistakes and hurt loved ones like most of u it sucks...but like I said the govenrment will never take into consideration people being hurt indirectly. You raise a great point about why crime rates are lower...its kind of like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. I don't have an answer for that one.</P>


taking illegal drugs = crime = victims</P>


Or are you saying making buying and selling them legal but using them illegal? That is an interesting notion I have never heard proposed before. </P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 08:40 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.*</P>


Well then lets just get rid of the*food and drug administration what the hell we them for? That would*save ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/in*medicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before they*operate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and drugging*in my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.*Today I get*by just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there are*many among us who*aren't prefect and **** up....And those who think they*are perfect really*don't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto their*houses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....*when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke a*joint*now even if the gov delivered it right to my door step I*simply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fair*you could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at you*but more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be a*disastrous way to fix anything*</P>

I respect ur opinion an make u some valid points but saying that the govenment must protect us from ourselves is irrelavant to this topic. I mean its just not reality...have no illusion whether drugs are made llegal or illegal..our safety will have no bearing on that.
It's all about money...not to get too far of base here but Look at the strictness of the drunk driving law in England...I believe its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is a not factor there...very few drunk driving deaths. You would think this country would adopt that...No way thats gonna happen here, not when there is money to be made off of DUI's and DUI classes....my point is the government does not take our safety into account on most decisions.

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 08:49 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.*</P>


Well then lets just get rid of the*food and drug administration what the hell we them for? That would*save ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/in*medicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before they*operate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and drugging*in my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.*Today I get*by just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there are*many among us who*aren't prefect and **** up....And those who think they*are perfect really*don't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto their*houses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....*when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke a*joint*now even if the gov delivered it right to my door step I*simply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fair*you could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at you*but more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be a*disastrous way to fix anything*</P>


what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.</P>


It may be your opinion, but it is not a victimless crime.* But the victims in this case are irrelevant to the legalization arguement.* Only arguement you can make is if it is more or less dangerous to society as a whole to make it legal.* If it is legal, then criminals will not be participating in it's trade and reduce crime.* People on some drugs are more likely to commit crimes to support their habit.* Where does it balance, idk.* Are the incidents of crime actually lower in those countries or are just fewer things illegal, that would reduce a crime rate.* Like reducing speeding on residential roads by increasing the speed limit.* Also, it does not exsist in a vacuum.* Are the crime rates lower because drugs are legal or are they able to legalize drugs because crime rates are lower?</P>


I said it's a victimless crime, not a victimless act...the crime is the buying and selling of drugs that is a victimless crime imo, there is no crime in hurting the ones who love u...I've made my mistakes and hurt loved ones like most of u it sucks...but like I said the govenrment will never take into consideration people being hurt indirectly. You raise a great point about why crime rates are lower...its kind of like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. I don't have an answer for that one.</P>


taking illegal drugs = crime = victims</P>


Or are you saying making buying and selling them legal but using them illegal?* That is an interesting notion I have never heard proposed before.* </P>
Your rite...taking illegal drugs=crime=victims

Hurting loved ones from drug use is not illegal...its a victimless crime...emphasis on the word crime. We are arguing semantics here. Your rite it is not a victimless act and that is what really matters...hurting the ones u love is a very serious thing...it just doesnt apply to the argument of making drugs legal or illegal...and imo the buying,selling, and using of drugs is a victimless crime imo its just not a victimless act.

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 08:51 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.*</P>


Well then lets just get rid of the*food and drug administration what the hell we them for? That would*save ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/in*medicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before they*operate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and drugging*in my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.*Today I get*by just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there are*many among us who*aren't prefect and **** up....And those who think they*are perfect really*don't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto their*houses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....*when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke a*joint*now even if the gov delivered it right to my door step I*simply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fair*you could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at you*but more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be a*disastrous way to fix anything*</P>


what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.</P>


It may be your opinion, but it is not a victimless crime.* But the victims in this case are irrelevant to the legalization arguement.* Only arguement you can make is if it is more or less dangerous to society as a whole to make it legal.* If it is legal, then criminals will not be participating in it's trade and reduce crime.* People on some drugs are more likely to commit crimes to support their habit.* Where does it balance, idk.* Are the incidents of crime actually lower in those countries or are just fewer things illegal, that would reduce a crime rate.* Like reducing speeding on residential roads by increasing the speed limit.* Also, it does not exsist in a vacuum.* Are the crime rates lower because drugs are legal or are they able to legalize drugs because crime rates are lower?</P>


I said it's a victimless crime, not a victimless act...the crime is the buying and selling of drugs that is a victimless crime imo, there is no crime in hurting the ones who love u...I've made my mistakes and hurt loved ones like most of u it sucks...but like I said the govenrment will never take into consideration people being hurt indirectly. You raise a great point about why crime rates are lower...its kind of like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. I don't have an answer for that one.</P>


taking illegal drugs = crime = victims</P>


Or are you saying making buying and selling them legal but using them illegal?* That is an interesting notion I have never heard proposed before.* </P>

how did u get that from what I wrote??? lol really??

jmike
07-23-2011, 09:09 PM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


Well then lets just get rid of thefood and drug administration what the hell we them for? That wouldsave ya some budget money right there....Most of these drugs you are talking about are used as/inmedicines...you can't turn that loose on people for Christ sakes...and theres a whole lot reason why...come on.. never going to happen......Maybe pot one day but to be honest I doubt I'll see the day let alone you young people...think of all the changes that would have happen just to regulate the stuff in the workplace alone.....Doctors taking piss test before theyoperate on and on and on....I've done my fair share of drinking and druggingin my day hurt people and make some pretty good size messes for myself.Today I getby just fine without any of it....</P>


The gov needs to protect us from ourselves because there aremany among us whoaren't prefect and **** up....And those who think theyare perfect reallydon't want the rest of us getting hooked on drugs ending up on the street, breaking onto theirhouses,operating on people,flying airplanes,driving cars...while they are stoned or hung over.......I'm sorry but the government needs to be and is embedded to serve and protect us. I'll end with this....when I was you guys age I wanted pot to legal too for many of the same reasons I've read here...I wouldn't smoke ajointnow even if the gov delivered it right to my door step Isimply have no need for it..</P>


Maybe in a perfect world where everybody is emotionally stable, honest and fairyou could deregulate many things encluding drugs....And I dare say we wouldn't have any budget problems in this country to worry about if that were the case....it just ain't and never will be the case..imho</P>


Lawl this not directed at youbut more in general..and I suck posting...but in today's world I just feel drug deregulation would be adisastrous way to fix anything</P>


what is the argument here?? Is it about the legaliazation of drugs?? If it is then the effects of drug use on marriages and families has no signifigance imo. There are million ways we as people are crappy towards one another. How about the father who works long hours, or the mother who runs around with milk man...don't those effect famlies? My point is drugs should be made legal by this counrty...Look at the crime rates of other countries similar to ours who have made it legal...they are much lower. Look at how much more efficently law enforcment could allocate their resources. We could focus on more seious offenses like rape, murder,etc. If you just look at the crime itself...buying and selling of drugs...you have a willing buyer and a willing seller...imo that is a victimless crime.</P>


It may be your opinion, but it is not a victimless crime. But the victims in this case are irrelevant to the legalization arguement. Only arguement you can make is if it is more or less dangerous to society as a whole to make it legal. If it is legal, then criminals will not be participating in it's trade and reduce crime. People on some drugs are more likely to commit crimes to support their habit. Where does it balance, idk. Are the incidents of crime actually lower in those countries or are just fewer things illegal, that would reduce a crime rate. Like reducing speeding on residential roads by increasing the speed limit. Also, it does not exsist in a vacuum. Are the crime rates lower because drugs are legal or are they able to legalize drugs because crime rates are lower?</P>


I said it's a victimless crime, not a victimless act...the crime is the buying and selling of drugs that is a victimless crime imo, there is no crime in hurting the ones who love u...I've made my mistakes and hurt loved ones like most of u it sucks...but like I said the govenrment will never take into consideration people being hurt indirectly. You raise a great point about why crime rates are lower...its kind of like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. I don't have an answer for that one.</P>


taking illegal drugs = crime = victims</P>


Or are you saying making buying and selling them legal but using them illegal? That is an interesting notion I have never heard proposed before. </P>


how did u get that from what I wrote??? lol really??Because you only mentioned buying and selling as a crime and no mention of taking them. So the logical conclusion would be you agree with using drugs remaining illegal.</P>


As to your previous post, I already said that the victims are irrelevant in this legalization arguement. Look up you will see it. My only point is it is far from victimless. Too many people want to talk about things in a vacuum, well sir that doesn't exist. Part of the illegal drug trade and using the illegal drugs is the crime that springs up around it. Whether it is the junkie mugging people to pay for a fix or a turf war by the sellers, or anything surrounding it. It is all related and there are victims. The point can be made that by legalizing it you eliminate many of those victims. But the trade and use of illegal drugs is not, by any rational measure "victimless." You think the kids that have to squirm their way past pushers after their elementary school lets out aren't victims? Or worse the ones who get enough pressure that they cave? Are they mature enough to realize understand their decision and therefore not victims but willing participants. That's cold.</P>


</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 09:18 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions.

Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.

jmike
07-23-2011, 09:27 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


I do believe it is illegal to attempt to sell drugs to a 6th grader in a school playground.</P>


So you like to deal with things in a vacuum it seems. Simple yes but rather irresponsible. So ok, legalize it. Lets assume then kids won't then be pressured on a playground (still will happen but legal now), instead they will get pressured durring commercial breaks on their favorite cartoons, probably worse. And don't say "well parents need to....." The economic climate of this country leads to parents having less imput with their kids than in the past, you can't do it on a single income anymore for most of the parents in this country. So you cannot police everything they here or say. So is it a good idea to have "Hey kids, this is Heroin Harry the Hamster saying I really like Bob's brand herion and I think you will too."</P>


I wish I could live in a vacuum too.</P>

byron
07-23-2011, 09:29 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote..

jmike
07-23-2011, 09:30 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people. But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 09:40 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


I do believe it is illegal to attempt to sell drugs to a 6th grader in a school playground.</P>


So you like to deal with things in a vacuum it seems.* Simple yes but rather irresponsible.* So ok, legalize it.* Lets assume then kids won't then be pressured on a playground (still will happen but legal now), instead they will get pressured durring commercial breaks on their favorite cartoons, probably worse.* And don't say "well parents need to....." The economic climate of this country leads to parents having less imput with their kids than in the past, you can't do it on a single income anymore for most of the parents in this country.* So you cannot police everything they here or say.* So is it a good idea to have "Hey kids, this is Heroin Harry the Hamster saying I really like Bob's brand herion and I think you will too."</P>


I wish I could live in a vacuum too.</P> .Im giving facts of what legalizing drugs could do based on other countries...all everyone else seems to be doing is talking about hypathetical situations that occur from drug use and all the issues that arise in the home. Why don't we make cheating on ur wife illegal too...doesnt that break up famlies??? Maybe this should be looked at in a vacume cause it sure isnt working the way it is set up currently. I keep seeing posts about things we already know...YES DRUGS HURT FAMILIES i know this first hand...what does that have to do with legalizing??? we hurt eachother in so many different ways...my god

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 09:43 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed during*the debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote..
good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 09:47 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people.* But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>

see thats what I mean u keep giving these situations...u really need to look at this in a vacume...people are too emotional when it comes to this topic...It needs to be looked at in economic terms. Willing buyer and willing seller...the point u made about both agreeing to a turf war is sillly we are not talking about that. I think drugs should be legal...i gave reasons...all u have done is state the obvious...like there are victims when drugs are used and all the outside effects.

jmike
07-23-2011, 09:54 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people. But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>


see thats what I mean u keep giving these situations...u really need to look at this in a vacume...people are too emotional when it comes to this topic...It needs to be looked at in economic terms. Willing buyer and willing seller...the point u made about both agreeing to a turf war is sillly we are not talking about that. I think drugs should be legal...i gave reasons...all u have done is state the obvious...like there are victims when drugs are used and all the outside effects.</P>


</P>


You said what I mentioned wasn't illegal. When in fact selling drugs to a 6th grader is illegal, mugging someone is illegal and having an all out turf war where people die is illegal. so you either didn't read or are misinformed about what is and is not legal.</P>


</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 09:59 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people.* But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>


see thats what I mean u keep giving these situations...u really need to look at this in a vacume...people are too emotional when it comes to this topic...It needs to be looked at in economic terms. Willing buyer and willing seller...the point u made about both agreeing to a turf war is sillly we are not talking about that. I think drugs should be legal...i gave reasons...all u have done is state the obvious...like there are victims when drugs are used and all the outside effects.</P>


*</P>


You said what I mentioned wasn't illegal.* When in fact selling drugs to a 6th grader is illegal, mugging someone is illegal and having an all out turf war where people die is illegal.* so you either didn't read or are misinformed about what is and is not legal.***</P>


*</P>

I read it and am very up on what is and is not illegal...the thing is u have gotten so far of base here its silly..I don't like looking at things so close minded but look at all the how many different directions this argument goes when u dont... Yes selling drugs too kids are illegal...so are gang fights where murder is involved...Like I said u keep telling us things we already know. Whats ur opinion on this??? do u have one?

jmike
07-23-2011, 10:00 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people. But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>


see thats what I mean u keep giving these situations...u really need to look at this in a vacume...people are too emotional when it comes to this topic...It needs to be looked at in economic terms. Willing buyer and willing seller...the point u made about both agreeing to a turf war is sillly we are not talking about that. I think drugs should be legal...i gave reasons...all u have done is state the obvious...like there are victims when drugs are used and all the outside effects.</P>


Furthermore at no point said it should be illegal because it breaks up families. What I said was it is not a victimless crime. There are many victims to illegal drug trade throughout the world, innumerable in fact. But you can pretend that buying a bit of herion in no way leadany of the crime that surrounds the trade of illegal drugs. I cannotdullude myself in such a way.</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 10:06 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people.* But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>


see thats what I mean u keep giving these situations...u really need to look at this in a vacume...people are too emotional when it comes to this topic...It needs to be looked at in economic terms. Willing buyer and willing seller...the point u made about both agreeing to a turf war is sillly we are not talking about that. I think drugs should be legal...i gave reasons...all u have done is state the obvious...like there are victims when drugs are used and all the outside effects.</P>


Furthermore at no point said it should be illegal because it breaks up families.* What I said was it is not a victimless crime.* There are many victims to illegal drug trade throughout the world, innumerable in fact.* But you can pretend that buying a bit of herion in no way lead*any of the crime that surrounds the trade of illegal drugs.* I cannot*dullude myself in such a way.*</P>

like i said people get too wrapped up into that ...I agree drugs are bad...selling drugs are bad...many victims like u said...But imo the buying,selling and taking of drugs is a victimless crime emphasis on the word crime... ur rite its not a victimless act.

byron
07-23-2011, 10:06 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 10:12 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed during*the debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don't*see the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize...* the irrelevant fall out as you call*it most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>

yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws.

jmike
07-23-2011, 10:20 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people. But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>


see thats what I mean u keep giving these situations...u really need to look at this in a vacume...people are too emotional when it comes to this topic...It needs to be looked at in economic terms. Willing buyer and willing seller...the point u made about both agreeing to a turf war is sillly we are not talking about that. I think drugs should be legal...i gave reasons...all u have done is state the obvious...like there are victims when drugs are used and all the outside effects.</P>


Furthermore at no point said it should be illegal because it breaks up families. What I said was it is not a victimless crime. There are many victims to illegal drug trade throughout the world, innumerable in fact. But you can pretend that buying a bit of herion in no way leadany of the crime that surrounds the trade of illegal drugs. I cannotdullude myself in such a way.</P> like i said people get too wrapped up into that ...I agree drugs are bad...selling drugs are bad...many victims like u said...But imo the buying,selling and taking of drugs is a victimless crime emphasis on the word crime... ur rite its not a victimless act.No, it isn't. If you would like you can go to CHOP in Philly and see all the babies that were born to hopped up drug adicted mothers. But they aren't victims? They are willing participants participants I guess, you know those crazy cravingspregnant womenget "huni can you get me banannas and pickles, oh and don't forget to pick up the crack on your way back". There are so many victims it is impossible to even include them all. And yes USING is included in buying drugs, I do believe that would be included in the crime of buying them and is in fact a crime itself.

jmike
07-23-2011, 10:27 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not.</P>


also mugging people is illegal as is having a turf war which includes shooting and killing other people. But I guess if both sides agree to have that war, it really is victimless when some of them die.</P>


see thats what I mean u keep giving these situations...u really need to look at this in a vacume...people are too emotional when it comes to this topic...It needs to be looked at in economic terms. Willing buyer and willing seller...the point u made about both agreeing to a turf war is sillly we are not talking about that. I think drugs should be legal...i gave reasons...all u have done is state the obvious...like there are victims when drugs are used and all the outside effects.</P>


</P>


You said what I mentioned wasn't illegal. When in fact selling drugs to a 6th grader is illegal, mugging someone is illegal and having an all out turf war where people die is illegal. so you either didn't read or are misinformed about what is and is not legal.</P>


</P>


I read it and am very up on what is and is not illegal...the thing is u have gotten so far of base here its silly..I don't like looking at things so close minded but look at all the how many different directions this argument goes when u dont... Yes selling drugs too kids are illegal...so are gang fights where murder is involved...Like I said u keep telling us things we already know. Whats ur opinion on this??? do u have one?Not yet, I see the merits of both sides to the arguement and haven't reached a conclusion yet. I just can't sit here and listen to someone say it is a victimless crime. I have seen too many victims. I keep stating the obvious because you completely ignore it. Do you think the drugs just appear in the seller's pocket? It didn't have to get trafficked here? But any crimes that may have occured durring said transit have nothing to do with the crime of buying or selling the drugs. They are unrelated I guess.</P>

byron
07-23-2011, 10:38 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact thatwe have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man thecriminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting offtrack...</P>

jmike
07-23-2011, 10:39 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P> yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws.Do you really think that drunk driving (the court costs, fines, jail time, time paid to the officers, road repairs, etc, all the things related to DUI) is profitable for the government?

jmike
07-23-2011, 10:42 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact thatwe have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man thecriminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting offtrack...</P>


But getting off track is the fun part. It's the same as the gun control arguement. Make guns illegal and it only stops the honest people from having them.</P>

byron
07-23-2011, 10:50 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact thatwe have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man thecriminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting offtrack...</P>


But getting off track is the fun part. It's the same as the gun control arguement. Make guns illegal and it only stops the honest people from having them.</P>exactly..but if you live in a vacuum wherethere's no gunsyour safe!....maybe

jmike
07-23-2011, 10:57 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact thatwe have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man thecriminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting offtrack...</P>


But getting off track is the fun part. It's the same as the gun control arguement. Make guns illegal and it only stops the honest people from having them.</P>


exactly..but if you live in a vacuum wherethere's no gunsyour safe!....maybesee, this is fun. Now who wants to argue about the death penalty?</P>


</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:05 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed during*the debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don't*see the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize...* the irrelevant fall out as you call*it most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P> yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws.Do you really think that drunk driving (the court costs, fines, jail time, time paid to the officers, road repairs, etc, all the things related to DUI) is profitable for the government?

You dont??? There is a lot of money involved in those things...Who is living in vacuum?

byron
07-23-2011, 11:05 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact thatwe have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man thecriminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting offtrack...</P>


But getting off track is the fun part. It's the same as the gun control arguement. Make guns illegal and it only stops the honest people from having them.</P>


exactly..but if you live in a vacuum wherethere's no gunsyour safe!....maybesee, this is fun. Now who wants to argue about the death penalty?</P>


</P>hahaha...Im tired jmike

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:08 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed during*the debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don't*see the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize...* the irrelevant fall out as you call*it most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact that*we have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man the*criminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting off*track...</P>

If ur trying to tell me laws are made mostly for our safety then ur the one living in the vacuum.

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:09 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P> yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws.Do you really think that drunk driving (the court costs, fines, jail time, time paid to the officers, road repairs, etc, all the things related to DUI) is profitable for the government? You dont??? There is a lot of money involved in those things...Who is living in vacuum?Yes lots of money. Doesn't make it profitable.

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:11 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:12 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>

for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:12 PM
Here you go, cost $114.3 billion for the US</P>


</P>


http://www.duifoundation.org/support/financial/</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:13 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>

for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed

im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:14 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressedthen find me one. Anything that says the gov't turns a profit on this stuff.

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:15 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressedthen find me one.* Anything that says the gov't turns a profit on this stuff.

I would..but i don't know how to post stuff on here...i am not the brightest when it comes to that sort of thing.

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:16 PM
good article though...u read it?

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:19 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressedthen find me one. Anything that says the gov't turns a profit on this stuff. I would..but i don't know how to post stuff on here...i am not the brightest when it comes to that sort of thing.you know how to copy and paste, that is a cop out.

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:21 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight.

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:23 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact thatwe have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man thecriminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting offtrack...</P>


But getting off track is the fun part. It's the same as the gun control arguement. Make guns illegal and it only stops the honest people from having them.</P>


exactly..but if you live in a vacuum wherethere's no gunsyour safe!....maybesee, this is fun. Now who wants to argue about the death penalty?</P>


</P>hahaha...Im tired jmikeNo time for tired B. We can't sleep! SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNETS!!!!!!!!

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:27 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight.

i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao

byron
07-23-2011, 11:33 PM
like I said above...those things u are describing are not illegal..kids having to see that when walking to school is sad but its not illegal...I think legalizing would take away many of these problems, my main point is the hurting of love ones and all these other issues that arise from drug use are all irrelvant when it comes to the legalization of drugs...its all about money..like I said earlier the safety of people is seldomly taken into account when making these decisions. Like I said victimless crime not a victimless act there is nothing illegal about the things u described...I wish they were but they are not. Well they may be irrelvant as you say, but you can bet they be discussed duringthe debate to legalize or not ..And damn sure carry weight when one makes his vote.. good point...doesnt change the real motive though..imo </P>


Motive being money?...Well I doubt the lawmakers of this country would put money ahead of the safety of its people or ignore the potential fall out that legalization would more than likely create....its not a black and white decision...I don'tsee the attitude of this country or the people who run it ever reaching a state of mind that would legalize... the irrelevant fall out as you callit most certainly would be the deal breaker...imho</P>


yes motive being money..not to get to far off base here but here is an example of this...look at the drunk driving laws in England, I think its mandatory jail time first offense. Drunk driving is almost non exsistient over there. Think of all the drunk driving related deaths in this counrty...If we were so concerned about the well being of the people here why not adopt their policy...The reason is there is far too much money to be made when it comes to DUI's and DUI classes and all the money that comes in for that....so yes lawmakers often do not take our safety into consideration when it comes to laws. </P>


The fact thatwe have laws at all begs to differ with what you say, they don't make laws for the fun of it....you know theres an old saying a padle lock keeps out the honest man thecriminal breaks window and goes in anyway.....we are getting offtrack...</P> If ur trying to tell me laws are made mostly for our safety then ur the one living in the vacuum. lets agree to disgree

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:37 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


</P>

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:43 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


*</P>

haha..ill take that as ur way of saying u were wrong....dont feel bad there is a first time for everything.

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:48 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


</P> haha..ill take that as ur way of saying u were wrong....dont feel bad there is a first time for everything.But here's the thing, I'm not wrong. The costs of drunk driving far exceed any income the government makes from it.

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:50 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


*</P> haha..ill take that as ur way of saying u were wrong....dont feel bad there is a first time for everything.But here's the thing, I'm not wrong.* The costs of drunk driving far exceed any income the government makes from it.

but like i told u..i have an article that disputes what u just said...for every article like the one u have presented there is one that negates it.

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:52 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


</P> haha..ill take that as ur way of saying u were wrong....dont feel bad there is a first time for everything.But here's the thing, I'm not wrong. The costs of drunk driving far exceed any income the government makes from it. but like i told u..i have an article that disputes what u just said...for every article like the one u have presented there is one that negates it.of course you do, you're computer just can't copy and paste.

byron
07-23-2011, 11:52 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmaowell give a <FONT color=#000000>example</FONT> and don't use drunk driving...

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:55 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


*</P> haha..ill take that as ur way of saying u were wrong....dont feel bad there is a first time for everything.But here's the thing, I'm not wrong.* The costs of drunk driving far exceed any income the government makes from it. but like i told u..i have an article that disputes what u just said...for every article like the one u have presented there is one that negates it.of course you do, you're computer just can't copy and paste.
ru calling me a liar??? Im being honest I cant copy and paste for some reason. Google it ull find numerous articles.

allentown PA
07-23-2011, 11:57 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmaowell give a <FONT color=#000000>example</FONT> and don't use drunk driving...

i don't know what u mean byron...give an example of what??? A law designed without are best intrests in mind?

jmike
07-23-2011, 11:58 PM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


</P> haha..ill take that as ur way of saying u were wrong....dont feel bad there is a first time for everything.But here's the thing, I'm not wrong. The costs of drunk driving far exceed any income the government makes from it. but like i told u..i have an article that disputes what u just said...for every article like the one u have presented there is one that negates it.of course you do, you're computer just can't copy and paste. ru calling me a liar??? Im being honest I cant copy and paste for some reason. Google it ull find numerous articles.I did, I found nothing. But lots of stuff on what it costs us.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 12:03 AM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P>


for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmao</P>


Is that the one from www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com (http://www.imapsychowithmyownmilitiaofangrygerbils.com)?</P>


*</P> haha..ill take that as ur way of saying u were wrong....dont feel bad there is a first time for everything.But here's the thing, I'm not wrong.* The costs of drunk driving far exceed any income the government makes from it. but like i told u..i have an article that disputes what u just said...for every article like the one u have presented there is one that negates it.of course you do, you're computer just can't copy and paste. ru calling me a liar??? Im being honest I cant copy and paste for some reason. Google it ull find numerous articles.I did, I found nothing.* But lots of stuff on what it costs us.*

really?...i swear i have found several...u must not be looking to hard.

jmike
07-24-2011, 12:03 AM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmaowell give a <FONT color=#000000>example</FONT> and don't use drunk driving... i don't know what u mean byron...give an example of what??? A law designed without are best intrests in mind?Yes, that is what he means. Unfortunately it is too subjective, many would argue our drunk driving laws are, but you would disagree. You even have a fantasy that the gov't turns a profit on it. Our gov't couldn't turn a profit buying up $50s for a penny each for pete's sake.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 12:07 AM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmaowell give a <FONT color=#000000>example</FONT> and don't use drunk driving... i don't know what u mean byron...give an example of what??? A law designed without are best intrests in mind?Yes, that is what he means.* Unfortunately it is too subjective, many would argue our drunk driving laws are, but you would disagree.* You even have a fantasy that the gov't turns a profit on it.* Our gov't couldn't turn a profit buying up $50s for a penny each for pete's sake.

Let the guy answer for himself..jeez....and its no fantasy..i have talked with many people on this topic who are a lot closer to the front lines than u...My main point was if think the drunk driving laws are set up for our safety and not about money..then ur foolish...that was my main point all along...yet u feel the need to side track me.

jmike
07-24-2011, 12:08 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million.

byron
07-24-2011, 12:10 AM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmaowell give a <FONT color=#000000>example</FONT> and don't use drunk driving... i don't know what u mean byron...give an example of what??? A law designed without are best intrests in mind?Yes, that is what he means. Unfortunately it is too subjective, many would argue our drunk driving laws are, but you would disagree. You even have a fantasy that the gov't turns a profit on it. Our gov't couldn't turn a profit buying up $50s for a penny each for pete's sake. yeah what she says ;)

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 12:10 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million.

question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?

jmike
07-24-2011, 12:14 AM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable. Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmaowell give a <FONT color=#000000>example</FONT> and don't use drunk driving... i don't know what u mean byron...give an example of what??? A law designed without are best intrests in mind?Yes, that is what he means. Unfortunately it is too subjective, many would argue our drunk driving laws are, but you would disagree. You even have a fantasy that the gov't turns a profit on it. Our gov't couldn't turn a profit buying up $50s for a penny each for pete's sake. Let the guy answer for himself..jeez....and its no fantasy..i have talked with many people on this topic who are a lot closer to the front lines than u...My main point was if think the drunk driving laws are set up for our safety and not about money..then ur foolish...that was my main point all along...yet u feel the need to side track me.There is no way the gov't turns a profit on drunk driving in this country. No way, you need to provide some type of finacial proof of that because it makes no sense at all. And some cop's drunk rumblings at a bar does not qualify as front line proof.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 12:16 AM
Costs Wisconsin $500 million in 2000</P>


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/cost.htm</P> for everyone of those u can find the opposite..im not impressed im still interested in hearing how our safety is taken into account with the drunk driving laws in this counrty.I still want to hear how it's profitable.* Which is the most insane thing I have heard on this thread tonight. i have one I found...i can't paste..i hate this computer...and its the most insane thing uve heard all night...I heard someone say that our govenment designs laws with our best intrests in mind...lmaowell give a <FONT color=#000000>example</FONT> and don't use drunk driving... i don't know what u mean byron...give an example of what??? A law designed without are best intrests in mind?Yes, that is what he means.* Unfortunately it is too subjective, many would argue our drunk driving laws are, but you would disagree.* You even have a fantasy that the gov't turns a profit on it.* Our gov't couldn't turn a profit buying up $50s for a penny each for pete's sake. Let the guy answer for himself..jeez....and its no fantasy..i have talked with many people on this topic who are a lot closer to the front lines than u...My main point was if think the drunk driving laws are set up for our safety and not about money..then ur foolish...that was my main point all along...yet u feel the need to side track me.There is no way the gov't turns a profit on drunk driving in this country.* No way, you need to provide some type of finacial proof of that because it makes no sense at all.* And some cop's drunk rumblings at a bar does not qualify as front line proof.*

again u avoided the question...ill give u the profit part..do u think its set up with our well being in mind???/ fyi it is not some drunk cop at the bar...nice attempt at humor though.

jmike
07-24-2011, 12:17 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know.

lawl
07-24-2011, 12:18 AM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


*</P>


That is a terrible arguement and makes no sense.* "It's not the nuclear bomb that was hurting anyone, it was the person choosing to set it off.* I find it rather unreasonable to say that the government should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others."</P>


Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than your point.* By your logic, the government should only ban people and nothing else.* So once we get rid of all those damned people, we'll be fine.</P>


However, I agree that the government should not waste it's time and resources chasing those who choose to destroy their lives.* Much better things to do (like have baseball players talk about steriods in a pointless hearing, when everyone with 2 functioning brain cells knew they were taking them).* My drug of choice was legal, so if someone wants to get wasted they will find a way and by criminalizing it you create more crime.</P>


I was only responding to the scope of victim point.* You can't make an arguement that there is only one victim when there isn't.</P>


Your analogy to disprove me is rather far off. Nuclear bombs actually do hurt people(surprise). Your sister was hurt because of what *you* were doing, not what the drug was doing. The drug never directly harmed her, whereas nuclear bombs dish out quite alot.

It comes down to personal choice and responsibility. If its something you want to do and it doesn't directly harm someone else...then what's the problem??

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 12:20 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know.

come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?

byron
07-24-2011, 12:27 AM
Hey Allentown..I don't doubt that the moneys taken in on fines and what not go'es into a pot..which is usedto offset court costs but there is no way they are making money...its just not happening..

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 12:29 AM
Hey Allentown..I don't doubt that the moneys taken in on fines and what not go'es into a pot..which is used*to offset court costs but there is no way they are making money...its just not happening..

i will give u that...but u have to agree that this law is not set up with our safety in mind.

byron
07-24-2011, 12:37 AM
Hey Allentown..Ir himself...don't doubt that the moneys taken in on fines and what not go'es into a pot..which is usedto offset court costs but there is no way they are making money...its just not happening.. i will give u that...but u have to agree that this law is not set up with our safety in mind.</P>


Come on man while it may not be as stiff as Englands laws its intent is the same and meant to protect people...keep the drunk driver off the streets so he don't kill somebody or himself...How good it works is another matter...</P>

lawl
07-24-2011, 12:57 AM
Hey Allentown..Ir himself...*don't doubt that the moneys taken in on fines and what not go'es into a pot..which is used*to offset court costs but there is no way they are making money...its just not happening.. i will give u that...but u have to agree that this law is not set up with our safety in mind.</P>


Come on man while it may not be as stiff as Englands laws its intent is the same and meant to protect people...keep the drunk driver off the streets so he don't kill somebody or himself...How good it works is another matter...</P>

Agreed byron, i can't imagine there being any other "true" reason behind duis other than the discouraging of drunk driving

byron
07-24-2011, 12:58 AM
How did it goMh!

jmike
07-24-2011, 01:10 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are. I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 01:12 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.

but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 01:12 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.

but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 01:12 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.

but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 01:15 AM
sorry i didnt mean to post that three times i tried to delete but it wouldnt let me

lawl
07-24-2011, 01:17 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.

but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.

You are making a huge assumption.

Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life.

Of course, it could be about money.

jmike
07-24-2011, 01:21 AM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stopit or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


</P>


</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here. I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister. I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me. But I was not the only one with problems. In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair. So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


</P>


That is a terrible arguement and makes no sense. "It's not the nuclear bomb that was hurting anyone, it was the person choosing to set it off. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the government should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others."</P>


Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than your point. By your logic, the government should only ban people and nothing else. So once we get rid of all those damned people, we'll be fine.</P>


However, I agree that the government should not waste it's time and resources chasing those who choose to destroy their lives. Much better things to do (like have baseball players talk about steriods in a pointless hearing, when everyone with 2 functioning brain cells knew they were taking them). My drug of choice was legal, so if someone wants to get wasted they will find a way and by criminalizing it you create more crime.</P>


I was only responding to the scope of victim point. You can't make an arguement that there is only one victim when there isn't.</P>


Your analogy to disprove me is rather far off. Nuclear bombs actually do hurt people(surprise). Your sister was hurt because of what *you* were doing, not what the drug was doing. The drug never directly harmed her, whereas nuclear bombs dish out quite alot. It comes down to personal choice and responsibility. If its something you want to do and it doesn't directly harm someone else...then what's the problem??No it doesn't, it only hurts people if another person sets it off. Just like a pile of drugs hurts nobody until somebody takes them. A gun doesn't hurt anyone until somebody fires it. The act of drunk driving hurts nobody until somebody gets hit. It is all ludicrous. Just get rid of all the people and we'll be safe. </P>

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 01:21 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it.

but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties.

You are making a huge assumption.

Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life.

Of course, it could be about money.

thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time.

jmike
07-24-2011, 01:28 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are. I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it. but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties. Not if the elected officials feel they are stiff enough. I'm not saying the laws are great, but they are made with making the roads safer in mind. The intentions are there even if the results aren't.</P>

byron
07-24-2011, 01:31 AM
hey guys/gal good discussionI really enjoyed it...time to hit the hay

jmike
07-24-2011, 01:32 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are. I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it. but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties. You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money. thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time. Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing? Nobody is arguing that. If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years andpermanent loss of license.

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 01:33 AM
hey guys/gal good discussion*I really enjoyed it*...time to hit the hay*

nite byron

allentown PA
07-24-2011, 01:36 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it. but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties. You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money. thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time. Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing?* Nobody is arguing that.* If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years and*permanent loss of license.

The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???

lawl
07-24-2011, 03:09 AM
and no offense lawl, u said u never tried anything which is awesome

but its also like a virgin trying to tell us what its like to have sex lol ya know
</P>


Nah, not really. I'm not the one saying that once you take it and get addicted you should be able to stop*it or stop yourself from breaking the law once on it.</P>


I'm saying if you get addicted and your life never gets back on track, then I don't give a ****. </P>




but thats my point

u've never experienced it in your body, you don't know if u would pick up the habit or not if u ever tried it
</P>


I wouldnt ever try it is the point.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


If others think they can do it and want to then go for it. <FONT color=#0000ff>The only victim when you take a drug is yourself</FONT>, why should that be a crime? If you're willing to put yourself at risk then go ahead and do it, and if you happen to do something stupid enough such as stealing, murder etc, then thats why you should go to jail, not because you wanted to get high.</P>


The increase in ****ed up people wont be that great, if there even is one. Why not help our economy instead of the ****ers in South America?</P>


</P>


I disagree with that. A heavy user of drugs hurts the people who love them. Look at how many marriages and families have been destroyed over the use of drugs. </P>




Maybe I am jumping in to a conversation and don't know the whole scope........but.....I agree with ny06 here.* I've battled my own addiction issues and what got me to stop was not what I was doing to myself, but what I was doing to my sister.* I wasn't even a victim as survival was not the plan for me.* But I was not the only one with problems.* In my selfishness I forgot that I wasn't the only one to lose their parents, my sister did too and I was about to cause her to lose another person she loved, and that wasn't fair.* So to say it is victimless just isn't true.


Right, but the drug wasn't hurting your sister, it was you taking stuff that was hurting her. That was a personal choice of yours just like it was a choice to stop. I find it rather unreasonable to say that the gov should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others, emotionally at that.</P>


*</P>


That is a terrible arguement and makes no sense.* "It's not the nuclear bomb that was hurting anyone, it was the person choosing to set it off.* I find it rather unreasonable to say that the government should be responsible for banning things that indirectly hurt others."</P>


Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than your point.* By your logic, the government should only ban people and nothing else.* So once we get rid of all those damned people, we'll be fine.</P>


However, I agree that the government should not waste it's time and resources chasing those who choose to destroy their lives.* Much better things to do (like have baseball players talk about steriods in a pointless hearing, when everyone with 2 functioning brain cells knew they were taking them).* My drug of choice was legal, so if someone wants to get wasted they will find a way and by criminalizing it you create more crime.</P>


I was only responding to the scope of victim point.* You can't make an arguement that there is only one victim when there isn't.</P>


Your analogy to disprove me is rather far off. Nuclear bombs actually do hurt people(surprise). Your sister was hurt because of what *you* were doing, not what the drug was doing. The drug never directly harmed her, whereas nuclear bombs dish out quite alot. It comes down to personal choice and responsibility. If its something you want to do and it doesn't directly harm someone else...then what's the problem??No it doesn't, it only hurts people if another person sets it off.* Just like a pile of drugs hurts nobody until somebody takes them.* A gun doesn't hurt anyone until somebody fires it.* The act of drunk driving hurts nobody until somebody gets hit.* It is all ludicrous.* Just get rid of all the people and we'll be safe.* </P>

Guns are legal, alcohol is legal.

lawl
07-24-2011, 03:14 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it. but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties. You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money. thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time. Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing?* Nobody is arguing that.* If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years and*permanent loss of license.

The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???

What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law. Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.

Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.

jmike
07-24-2011, 03:46 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are. I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it. but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties. You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money. thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time. Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing? Nobody is arguing that. If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years andpermanent loss of license.

The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???

What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law.<font size="4"> Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.</font>

Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. People commit murder for one of three reasons 1-profit, 2-passion and 3-compulsion.

1-profit: A person killing for profit is a professional and does not believe he will get caught so nothing is a deterrent.

2-passion: A crime of passion is just that, you don't stop to think about the potential consequences of your actions, you just act.

3-compulsion: If a person has a need to kill no deterrent will effectively prevent that.

Punishment for murder is just that, punishment, there is no real way to deter it.

lawl
07-24-2011, 04:27 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes.* Are they effective?* Mostly no.* But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are.* I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it. but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties. You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money. thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time. Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing?* Nobody is arguing that.* If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years and*permanent loss of license.

The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???

What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law.<font size="4"> Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.</font>

Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all.* People commit murder for one of three reasons 1-profit, 2-passion and 3-compulsion.

1-profit: A person killing for profit is a professional and does not believe he will get caught so nothing is a deterrent.

2-passion: A crime of passion is just that, you don't stop to think about the potential consequences of your actions, you just act.

3-compulsion: If a person has a need to kill no deterrent will effectively prevent that.

Punishment for murder is just that, punishment, there is no real way to deter it.


This is besides the point, but thanks for the tidbit.

That's not sarcasm, if it seems that way

jmike
07-24-2011, 10:15 AM
New Mexico costs in 2006 $2.5 billion, revenue including alcohol taxes $97 million. question...since u dont seem to ever answer the question directly...Do u think the drunk driving laws are set with our well being in mind?In mind? Yes. Are they effective? Mostly no. But I can say with confidense they weren't made with profits in mind and I'm the biggest cynic when it comes to our gov't I know. come on now...u cant be serious...why not adopt england's law...they do a fine job...if we were really concerned with the safety of our citizens why not that?I never argued that their laws on the subject aren't better, they are. I just said that our gov't isn't turning a profit on it. but ur missing my point and that is that our drunk driving laws are not completly designed with out safety at mind..money has a lot to do with it. If it was all about safety then we would have stiffer penalties. You are making a huge assumption. Maybe the laws aren't as strict because our government believes in second chances and that the current DUI policy is enough of a balance between being a deterrent and not completely ruining your life. Of course, it could be about money. thats a really good point u made...But I think we can all agree that drunk driving is a bad thing..and yes people make mistakes but that is a very serious mistake imo and should be punished strictly. I think anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk driver would agree with me....I think stricter rules would cut the dui count down big time. Who said stiffer penalties would be a bad thing? Nobody is arguing that. If I were making the law it would be mandatory 5 years andpermanent loss of license.

The law is set up to stop the act of drunk driving correct??? We all agree that this is a serious offense...my question remains...If cutting down on drunk driving is the goal with the law then why such a laxed one???

What you're trying to argue can be applied to every law.<font size="4"> Life in prison isn't enough of a deterrent to murder someone? Ok well let's make it automatic death sentence.</font>

Speeding tickets are used to prevent speeding, but everyone speeds so let's make the law automatic year suspension of license.

The punishment for DUI is what they deem enough to be fair and enough of a deterrent. It's not because they aren't interested in safety.

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. People commit murder for one of three reasons 1-profit, 2-passion and 3-compulsion.

1-profit: A person killing for profit is a professional and does not believe he will get caught so nothing is a deterrent.

2-passion: A crime of passion is just that, you don't stop to think about the potential consequences of your actions, you just act.

3-compulsion: If a person has a need to kill no deterrent will effectively prevent that.

Punishment for murder is just that, punishment, there is no real way to deter it.


This is besides the point, but thanks for the tidbit.

That's not sarcasm, if it seems that wayYou're welcome, but it isn't really besides the point. Sometimes (like in the case of murder) an increase in punishment for the crime does not work as a deterrent. Sometimes it does. In the case of drunk driving, I believe it would. Because unlike murder for reasons stated above and stealing which mostly is done out of desperation or as a profession (again no use as a deterrent) most drunk drivers are otherwise law abiding citizens. If the punishments were severe enough more people would think about alternate plans before they go out to drink. So in this instance, an increased punishment would have a positive impact; how much is debatable.

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 09:12 AM
<FONT size=6>102</FONT>

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 09:25 AM
BTW, I don't want any stinking trades this week. I don't want Carlos Beltran or any of the other names being thrown around. Josh Red**** is good with me at right field. We gave up a lot of prospects in the Gonzo trade.</P>


My team is on the field. We just need to get Clay Buchholtz healthy by September.</P>

bandwgn86
07-25-2011, 09:46 AM
WOooohooo looks like players will sign today..

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 09:51 AM
That's good news! I had some football talk yesterday. Was good to have it for a change without having to talk about the lockout, or fantasy football or any of that BS.

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 10:11 AM
That's good news! I had some football talk yesterday. Was good to have it for a change without having to talk about the lockout, or fantasy football or any of that BS.NFL should start the wheels in motion very soon. It's about time. The owner's ratified a 10 year cba. That's 10 years before we have to go thru this again.

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 10:16 AM
The tagf caption this pic thread on Jerry Jone's and John Mara is pretty hilarious for a Monday morning.

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 10:40 AM
If you don't pay your exorcist.....do you get reposessed?!

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 10:45 AM
http://i.imgur.com/yNeE7.jpg

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 10:56 AM
That's good news! I had some football talk yesterday. Was good to have it for a change without having to talk about the lockout, or fantasy football or any of that BS.</P>


One report has players being able to be signed as early as today. Two others say not until Friday.</P>


Point is that no one really knows.</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 10:59 AM
If you don't pay your exorcist.....do you get reposessed?!Lol

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:01 AM
http://i.imgur.com/FClnA.jpg

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 11:03 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:06 AM
This is the bomb that nutcase in Norway set off before he individually murdered @ 100 kids on a camp island.
http://i.imgur.com/dulZbb.jpg

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 11:07 AM
I love when people put captions on stock photos, there was one i saw recently where I concerned father was in the background, and he's watching his 14 year old daughter talking on her cell phone, and the text says "Oh god.....she talking about ****! i know it!"
lol

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:07 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>Who's that youngster jamming on his guitar?

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:09 AM
I love when people put captions on stock photos, there was one i saw recently where I concerned father was in the background, and he's watching his 14 year old daughter talking on her cell phone, and the text says "Oh god.....she talking about ****! i know it!"
lolI heard the same exact spin on that the other day, but it was a husband talking about his wife while she was on the phone--lol.

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 11:10 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</P>


</P>


wheres our tshirts?</P>

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</P>


Who's that youngster jamming on his guitar?
</P>


Morehead's alter ego.</P>

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 11:12 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</P>


</P>


wheres our tshirts?</P>


</P>


Submit your orders and I will make it happen.</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:15 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>


</p>


wheres our tshirts?</p>


</p>


Submit your orders and I will make it happen.</p>1 xxl Old Gun's t-shrt for Lt's Big Gun's please.

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 11:15 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</P>


</P>


wheres our tshirts?</P>


</P>


Submit your orders and I will make it happen.</P>


</P>


didnt we do that by spamming the forums with our shirt sizes last week? lol</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:16 AM
For Bandy:

http://i.imgur.com/M3ROm.jpg

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 11:16 AM
how awesome would this be!!??!?!</P>


http://i.imgur.com/bjh2i.gif

(And potentially painful)</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:17 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>


</p>


wheres our tshirts?</p>


</p>


Submit your orders and I will make it happen.</p>


</p>


didnt we do that by spamming the forums with our shirt sizes last week? lol</p>Ya'all really are big spammers

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:24 AM
how awesome would this be!!??!?!</p>


http://i.imgur.com/bjh2i.gif

(And potentially painful)</p>Holy ****! Looks like 1 dude bounced back into shore and the other guy should of taken high diving lessons before he agreed to that

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:28 AM
<h1>Agreement in place; players will vote once document is done</h1>
<ul id="article-hdr-meta" class="collapsed"><li id="article-hdr-meta-headshot">http://static.nfl.com/static/content/catch_all/nfl_image/albert_breer_10_HS_65.jpg<li id="article-hdr-meta-author">


By Albert Breer
<span id="article-hdr-meta-src">NFL Network</span>




<li id="article-hdr-meta-title">NFL Network Reporter<li id="article-hdr-meta-pub">
<span class="label">Published:</span>
<span class="published">

<abbr id="article-time" class="value" title="2011-07-25T05:33:00-0700">
July 25, 2011 at 08:33 a.m.
</abbr>
</span>
<li id="article-hdr-meta-updated">
<span class="label">Updated:</span>
<span class="updated">

<abbr id="article-updatedtime" class="value" title="2011-07-25T07:09:33-0700">
July 25, 2011 at 10:09 a.m.
</abbr>
</span>
<div class="yui3-widget yui3-articlemetadata" id="yui_3_3_0_2_13116039777121167"><li class="yui3-articlemetadata-content" id="article-hdr-meta-pluck"><span id="pre-article-comment-totals-count">
Liked: 202
|
Comments: 83
</span></div>[/list]WASHINGTON –- The lockout could well be in its final hours.

Legal
teams for NFL owners and players negotiated through the weekend and
deep into Monday morning, wrapping up at 3 a.m. with an agreement on
basic terms.</p>

According to multiple sources involved, the deal is
not 100 percent done yet, with the final document just completed about
two hours prior a scheduled conference call with the 32 team player reps
at 11 a.m. ET. Legal teams are proofing and fixing the details. That’s
important, because the language of a completed deal is what caused some
of the hang-ups that occurred last week.</p>


</p><div class="nfl-video-tag nfl-video-small nfl-video-right" id="09000d5d820f4c7f" style="visibility:hidden">


</div>


The goal is for the NFLPA to present the completed document
to its 13-man executive committee between 11 a.m. to noon ET on Monday,
with a vote to follow. Some members of the executive committee aren’t
expected to arrive in D.C. until the 11 o’clock hour. The player rep
call will include a briefing of the deal and, in particular, changes
since last Wednesday’s meeting.</p>

The player reps would then vote
on the deal. After that, the 10 plaintiffs in the Brady et al v. the
National Football League et al lawsuit would have to sign off, which is
fully expected.</p>

At this point, what remains is "a few small points” in the language, according to a source.</p>

According
to another source, the league has a plan in place for the coming days.
The doors could open as soon as Monday, with clubs allowed to sign
draftees and rookie free agents Tuesday. Free agency would begin Friday
at 6 p.m. ET, though clubs could begin to speak with free agents
starting Tuesday. Ten teams would open camp Wednesday, another 10
Thursday, another 10 Friday, and the remaining two on Sunday.</p>


</p>

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820f4c7f/article/with-agreement-in-place-players-will-vote-once-document-is-completed?module=HP11_breaking_news (http://)
</p>

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 11:30 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>a hawaiian shirt and white pants? who are you, peter allen?

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:34 AM
What did ya think about Curb your enthusiasm last night? lmfao.

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 11:36 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</P>


a hawaiian shirt and white pants? who are you, peter allen?
</P>


They are shorts. It was 90+ degrees Friday night.</P>

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 11:39 AM
Can't we just do the draft order today? lol

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 11:40 AM
What did ya think about Curb your enthusiasm last night? lmfao.
missed it. ill catch it later or tomorrow. im guessing it was good.

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 11:42 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>


a hawaiian shirt and white pants? who are you, peter allen?
</p>


They are shorts. It was 90+ degrees Friday night.</p>[W]

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:43 AM
What did ya think about Curb your enthusiasm last night? lmfao.
missed it. ill catch it later or tomorrow. im guessing it was good.
Good epi--

Highlights: 1&gt; Lip Smacker, 2&gt;LOL, 3&gt;Alabasas Chicken Woman

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>


a hawaiian shirt and white pants? who are you, peter allen?
</p>


They are shorts. It was 90+ degrees Friday night.</p>[W]D-Those Hawaiin shirts are SOOOOO comfortable. It's like free-ballin, but for your upper body.

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 11:47 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</P>


a hawaiian shirt and white pants? who are you, peter allen?
</P>


They are shorts. It was 90+ degrees Friday night.</P>


[W]D-Those Hawaiin shirts are SOOOOO comfortable. It's like free-ballin, but for your upper body.
</P>


Exactly. I wore a T shirt to set up and it was soaked through. I needed something loose fitting.</P>


Plus...I LOOK GOOD!!!!</P>


On a cooler night, I'd be wearing my Hakeem Nicks jersey.</P>

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 11:48 AM
What did ya think about Curb your enthusiasm last night? lmfao.
missed it. ill catch it later or tomorrow. im guessing it was good.
Good epi--

Highlights: 1&gt; Lip Smacker, 2&gt;LOL, 3&gt;Alabasas Chicken Woman
</P>


You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:49 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>


a hawaiian shirt and white pants? who are you, peter allen?
</p>


They are shorts. It was 90+ degrees Friday night.</p>


[W]D-Those Hawaiin shirts are SOOOOO comfortable. It's like free-ballin, but for your upper body.
</p>


Exactly. I wore a T shirt to set up and it was soaked through. I needed something loose fitting.</p>


Plus...I LOOK GOOD!!!!</p>


On a cooler night, I'd be wearing my Hakeem Nicks jersey.</p># 88, I can't wait to rock my Hakeem the dream jersey this year!!!!

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:50 AM
What did ya think about Curb your enthusiasm last night? lmfao.
missed it. ill catch it later or tomorrow. im guessing it was good.
Good epi--

Highlights: 1&gt; Lip Smacker, 2&gt;LOL, 3&gt;Alabasas Chicken Woman
</p>


You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</p>Great when Funkhouser entered LD's house while LD was upstairs with the anti-semi. lmao.

ny06
07-25-2011, 11:51 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506http://nickshell1983.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/magnum-pi.jpg</P>


</P>


Seperated at birth?</P>

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 11:52 AM
What did ya think about Curb your enthusiasm last night? lmfao.
missed it. ill catch it later or tomorrow. im guessing it was good.
Good epi--

Highlights: 1&gt; Lip Smacker, 2&gt;LOL, 3&gt;Alabasas Chicken Woman
</P>


You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</P>


Great when Funkhouser entered LD's house while LD was upstairs with the anti-semi. lmao.
</P>


He'll always be "Super Dave" to me.</P>


http://silverstatechronicles.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/superdave.jpg</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 11:57 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506http://nickshell1983.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/magnum-pi.jpg</p>


</p>


Seperated at birth?</p>hah, great connection

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 11:58 AM
Very successful debut for "Old Guns" on Friday night.</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/012-1.jpg?t=1311602506</p>


a hawaiian shirt and white pants? who are you, peter allen?
</p>


They are shorts. It was 90+ degrees Friday night.</p>


[W]D-Those Hawaiin shirts are SOOOOO comfortable. It's like free-ballin, but for your upper body.
</p>


Exactly. I wore a T shirt to set up and it was soaked through. I needed something loose fitting.</p>


Plus...I LOOK GOOD!!!!</p>


On a cooler night, I'd be wearing my Hakeem Nicks jersey.</p>how did you guys do? how was your drummer? did you rock out with your **** out?

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 12:00 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</P>


</P>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</P>

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 12:06 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</P>


</P>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</P>


</P>


As bad as it was last year. It was much worse last night.</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 12:10 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</p>


</p>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</p>It was not that bad..... now skinny Turtle, has to be more careful with his j's.

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 12:11 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</p>


</p>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</p>


</p>


As bad as it was last year. It was much worse last night.</p>Why? What happened?

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 12:13 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</P>


</P>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</P>


</P>


As bad as it was last year. It was much worse last night.</P>


</P>


To me, it's been unbearable since season 4 started. Yet, I keep watching it, because I feel a level of commitment to it.
GOtta be honest, I'm glad to see it end this year. Put that put that old dog down. Put it out of it's misery, don't let it suffer any longer.</P>

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 12:16 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</P>


</P>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</P>


</P>


As bad as it was last year. It was much worse last night.</P>


Why? What happened?
</P>


Nothing......Thats the problem.</P>

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 12:20 PM
Why? What happened?
</P>


the show went to the ****ter follwing the writer strike way back when....
the writing was just so ****ign terrible that it became Jeremy Piven trying to save the show by himself.
That's why among my friends I just refer to it as The Jeremy Piven show. Cuz Ari Gold is the only character left it seems.</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 12:23 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</p>


</p>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</p>


</p>


As bad as it was last year. It was much worse last night.</p>


Why? What happened?
</p>


Nothing......Thats the problem.</p> The questionable member worked out ok? More important...how did the crowd respond to Old Gunz?

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 12:25 PM
Why? What happened?
</p>


the show went to the ****ter follwing the writer strike way back when....
the writing was just so ****ign terrible that it became Jeremy Piven trying to save the show by himself.
That's why among my friends I just refer to it as The Jeremy Piven show. Cuz Ari Gold is the only character left it seems.</p>lol--I see what happened--I thought I was talking about old gunz ---little alzheimer moment. ha.

Always thought Ari's character is awesome on that show.

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 12:30 PM
Always thought Ari's character is awesome on that show.
</P>


"WHEN THE BATPHONE RINGS ON A MOTHER****IN WEDNESDAY!!!"</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 12:40 PM
Always thought Ari's character is awesome on that show.
</p>


"WHEN THE BATPHONE RINGS ON A MOTHER****IN WEDNESDAY!!!"</p>lol

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2010/2/26/65%20No%20Seriously%20WTF_thumb.jpg
http://yesitisawoman.com/data/images/2010/01/08/ef6178.jpg
http://www.colectiva.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hiphopfail.gif
http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=33868&amp;stc=1&amp;d=12899819 14

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 12:45 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</P>


</P>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</P>


</P>


As bad as it was last year. It was much worse last night.</P>


Why? What happened?
</P>


Nothing......Thats the problem.</P>


The questionable member worked out ok? More important...how did the crowd respond to Old Gunz?
</P>


Our drummer did a nice job. A little sketchy on "Blood and Roses" but in general he did good.</P>


We had a very friendly crowd (about 100 people on the patio) almost all of whom we new. So they were very complimentary to us after the show.</P>


I actually think they were expecting less.</P>

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 01:38 PM
Q: A 10-6 record. A 7th-ranked defense. Eli Manning (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5526)
throws for more than 4,000 yards and 30-plus touchdowns but has 30
turnovers, which plagued the whole team. Tom Coughlin is known for
correcting turnover issues (Tiki Barber (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=1218)). Can the Giants realistically be a Super Bowl contender if the number of turnovers is reduced?

James in Trenton, N.J.</p>

A: Yes,
I think they can, but I have two concerns: linebacker and offensive
line. The linebacking corps is very talented and seems always to be in
transition. The offensive line is old, and I don't see enough young
potential starters ready to step up and help out. Because the NFC East
plays the NFC West, the Giants have a great chance to go 3-1 or 4-0 in
those games. If they can do that, they can get to 11 wins and have a
chance at winning the division, and that's the first step to making a
Super Bowl run.</p>


</p>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 02:06 PM
You know I hate these conversations, but Curb was very funny last night. Entourage was a nightmare. Unwatchable.</p>


</p>


greeeaaat....cant wait to watch the steamy pile of dog **** that has become entourage.</p>


</p>


As bad as it was last year. It was much worse last night.</p>


Why? What happened?
</p>


Nothing......Thats the problem.</p>


The questionable member worked out ok? More important...how did the crowd respond to Old Gunz?
</p>


Our drummer did a nice job. A little sketchy on "Blood and Roses" but in general he did good.</p>


We had a very friendly crowd (about 100 people on the patio) almost all of whom we new. So they were very complimentary to us after the show.</p>


I actually think they were expecting less.</p>That sounds like positive input to build on.

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 02:23 PM
Q: A 10-6 record. A 7th-ranked defense. Eli Manning (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5526)
throws for more than 4,000 yards and 30-plus touchdowns but has 30
turnovers, which plagued the whole team. Tom Coughlin is known for
correcting turnover issues (Tiki Barber (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=1218)). Can the Giants realistically be a Super Bowl contender if the number of turnovers is reduced?

James in Trenton, N.J.</p>

A: Yes,
I think they can, but I have two concerns: linebacker and offensive
line. The linebacking corps is very talented and seems always to be in
transition. The offensive line is old, and I don't see enough young
potential starters ready to step up and help out. Because the NFC East
plays the NFC West, the Giants have a great chance to go 3-1 or 4-0 in
those games. If they can do that, they can get to 11 wins and have a
chance at winning the division, and that's the first step to making a
Super Bowl run.</p>


</p>Hmmmm. Interesting answer. The turnover's were key last year. I dunnno--even if we sweep the nfc west -we still have to get past the eagles and the curse they have on us. Then contend with the afc east-pats, jets.

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 02:27 PM
I am exhausted. Sunday FunDay takes so much out of me these days. And I'm always so sore on Monday lol. Boozin' dehydrates you + physical activity....bad combination lol.
But thats ok, I need the activity, even if it's just hurling volleyballs at your friends' heads in the pool, or belly flopping onto their floatation devices as they lay on them.
Or my newpersonal favorite: Leisure Diving!!!! It's just painful, because you usually land awkwardly on your side, eesh

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 02:32 PM
I am exhausted. Sunday FunDay takes so much out of me these days. And I'm always so sore on Monday lol. Boozin' dehydrates you + physical activity....bad combination lol.
But thats ok, I need the activity, even if it's just hurling volleyballs at your friends' heads in the pool, or belly flopping onto their floatation devices as they lay on them.
Or my newpersonal favorite: Leisure Diving!!!! It's just painful, because you usually land awkwardly on your side, eeshI need to see a video of the Leisure Dive. I heard these two guy's in the city thought up a great new activity for family fun day at the pool. You and a buddy go into the deep end and have a breath holding contest. Don't worry, eventually human bodies float to the surface if someting goes wrong.

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 02:32 PM
Q: A 10-6 record. A 7th-ranked defense. Eli Manning (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5526) throws for more than 4,000 yards and 30-plus touchdowns but has 30 turnovers, which plagued the whole team. Tom Coughlin is known for correcting turnover issues (Tiki Barber (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=1218)). Can the Giants realistically be a Super Bowl contender if the number of turnovers is reduced?


James in Trenton, N.J.</P>


A: Yes, I think they can, but I have two concerns: linebacker and offensive line. The linebacking corps is very talented and seems always to be in transition. The offensive line is old, and I don't see enough young potential starters ready to step up and help out. Because the NFC East plays the NFC West, the Giants have a great chance to go 3-1 or 4-0 in those games. If they can do that, they can get to 11 wins and have a chance at winning the division, and that's the first step to making a Super Bowl run.</P>



</P>


Hmmmm. Interesting answer. The turnover's were key last year. I dunnno--even if we sweep the nfc west -we still have to get past the eagles and the curse they have on us. Then contend with the afc east-pats, jets.


</P>


I dont think the Jets will be as good this year as they have been the previous 2.
But regardless....who cares about the NFC West or AFC East....we need to worry about our OWN division first and foremost.</P>

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 02:44 PM
I am exhausted. Sunday FunDay takes so much out of me these days. And I'm always so sore on Monday lol. Boozin' dehydrates you + physical activity....bad combination lol.
But thats ok, I need the activity, even if it's just hurling volleyballs at your friends' heads in the pool, or belly flopping onto their floatation devices as they lay on them.
Or my newpersonal favorite: Leisure Diving!!!! It's just painful, because you usually land awkwardly on your side, eeshI need to see a video of the Leisure Dive. I heard these two guy's in the city thought up a great new activity for family fun day at the pool. You and a buddy go into the deep end and have a breath holding contest. Don't worry, eventually human bodies float to the surface if someting goes wrong.
</P>


Leisure diving is only funny in photos....its stupid in videos cuz its just someone jumping in a pool.
my brother has some really expensive Digital SLR camera and he took some pics of it yesterday. Hopefully i can get them online soon lol
My leisure dive is where I lay out to the side, and I rest my head on my bottom hand and pull up my leg up to my other knee in a triangle shape as if I'm laying on the couch. lol...the pic came out pretty good.
My buddy does one where he jumps, spins to to back with both his hands behind his head. like he's laying down.</P>

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 02:45 PM
was anyone having trouble with the boards this morning?

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 02:47 PM
Q: A 10-6 record. A 7th-ranked defense. Eli Manning (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5526)
throws for more than 4,000 yards and 30-plus touchdowns but has 30
turnovers, which plagued the whole team. Tom Coughlin is known for
correcting turnover issues (Tiki Barber (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=1218)). Can the Giants realistically be a Super Bowl contender if the number of turnovers is reduced?

James in Trenton, N.J.</p>

A: Yes,
I think they can, but I have two concerns: linebacker and offensive
line. The linebacking corps is very talented and seems always to be in
transition. The offensive line is old, and I don't see enough young
potential starters ready to step up and help out. Because the NFC East
plays the NFC West, the Giants have a great chance to go 3-1 or 4-0 in
those games. If they can do that, they can get to 11 wins and have a
chance at winning the division, and that's the first step to making a
Super Bowl run.</p>


</p>we could have the number one ranked defense, as long as the giants continue to not close out the games in the 3rd and 4th quarter we wont make the playoffs. the defense is this teams achilles heal. and our linebacker core is not talented. decent at best.

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 02:59 PM
I am exhausted. Sunday FunDay takes so much out of me these days. And I'm always so sore on Monday lol. Boozin' dehydrates you + physical activity....bad combination lol.
But thats ok, I need the activity, even if it's just hurling volleyballs at your friends' heads in the pool, or belly flopping onto their floatation devices as they lay on them.
Or my newpersonal favorite: Leisure Diving!!!! It's just painful, because you usually land awkwardly on your side, eeshI need to see a video of the Leisure Dive. I heard these two guy's in the city thought up a great new activity for family fun day at the pool. You and a buddy go into the deep end and have a breath holding contest. Don't worry, eventually human bodies float to the surface if someting goes wrong.
</p>


Leisure diving is only funny in photos....its stupid in videos cuz its just someone jumping in a pool.
my brother has some really expensive Digital SLR camera and he took some pics of it yesterday. Hopefully i can get them online soon lol
My leisure dive is where I lay out to the side, and I rest my head on my bottom hand and pull up my leg up to my other knee in a triangle shape as if I'm laying on the couch. lol...the pic came out pretty good.
My buddy does one where he jumps, spins to to back with both his hands behind his head. like he's laying down.</p>Those slr pics are going to look like pure fun I'm sure. Your buds dive is called "the inverted plank" lol

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 03:03 PM
was anyone having trouble with the boards this morning?

Nope, no trouble. Page loading took a little longer than usual today.

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 03:03 PM
I am exhausted. Sunday FunDay takes so much out of me these days. And I'm always so sore on Monday lol. Boozin' dehydrates you + physical activity....bad combination lol.
But thats ok, I need the activity, even if it's just hurling volleyballs at your friends' heads in the pool, or belly flopping onto their floatation devices as they lay on them.
Or my newpersonal favorite: Leisure Diving!!!! It's just painful, because you usually land awkwardly on your side, eeshI need to see a video of the Leisure Dive. I heard these two guy's in the city thought up a great new activity for family fun day at the pool. You and a buddy go into the deep end and have a breath holding contest. Don't worry, eventually human bodies float to the surface if someting goes wrong.
</P>


Leisure diving is only funny in photos....its stupid in videos cuz its just someone jumping in a pool.
my brother has some really expensive Digital SLR camera and he took some pics of it yesterday. Hopefully i can get them online soon lol
My leisure dive is where I lay out to the side, and I rest my head on my bottom hand and pull up my leg up to my other knee in a triangle shape as if I'm laying on the couch. lol...the pic came out pretty good.
My buddy does one where he jumps, spins to to back with both his hands behind his head. like he's laying down.</P>


Those slr pics are going to look like pure fun I'm sure. Your buds dive is called "the inverted plank" lol
</P>


lol it would be, if his hands were at his sides.

My youngest brother is an idiot, he says he wants to plank a folding ladder on top of our roof. I dont know why, but I called him an idiot. Not because it's dangerous, but because planking is SOOOOOO 2010!!!
Now it's all about owling and gargoyling!!!</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 03:06 PM
Q: A 10-6 record. A 7th-ranked defense. Eli Manning (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5526)
throws for more than 4,000 yards and 30-plus touchdowns but has 30
turnovers, which plagued the whole team. Tom Coughlin is known for
correcting turnover issues (Tiki Barber (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=1218)). Can the Giants realistically be a Super Bowl contender if the number of turnovers is reduced?

James in Trenton, N.J.</p>

A: Yes,
I think they can, but I have two concerns: linebacker and offensive
line. The linebacking corps is very talented and seems always to be in
transition. The offensive line is old, and I don't see enough young
potential starters ready to step up and help out. Because the NFC East
plays the NFC West, the Giants have a great chance to go 3-1 or 4-0 in
those games. If they can do that, they can get to 11 wins and have a
chance at winning the division, and that's the first step to making a
Super Bowl run.</p>


</p>we could have the number one ranked defense, as long as the giants continue to not close out the games in the 3rd and 4th quarter we wont make the playoffs. the defense is this teams achilles heal. and our linebacker core is not talented. decent at best.
We do need a closing linebacker squad that takes the turf like that pitcher the Yankees has. The stadium can blare Enter the Sandman by Metallica and we can force 3 and outs through entire 4th quarters.

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 03:08 PM
I am exhausted. Sunday FunDay takes so much out of me these days. And I'm always so sore on Monday lol. Boozin' dehydrates you + physical activity....bad combination lol.
But thats ok, I need the activity, even if it's just hurling volleyballs at your friends' heads in the pool, or belly flopping onto their floatation devices as they lay on them.
Or my newpersonal favorite: Leisure Diving!!!! It's just painful, because you usually land awkwardly on your side, eeshI need to see a video of the Leisure Dive. I heard these two guy's in the city thought up a great new activity for family fun day at the pool. You and a buddy go into the deep end and have a breath holding contest. Don't worry, eventually human bodies float to the surface if someting goes wrong.
</p>


Leisure diving is only funny in photos....its stupid in videos cuz its just someone jumping in a pool.
my brother has some really expensive Digital SLR camera and he took some pics of it yesterday. Hopefully i can get them online soon lol
My leisure dive is where I lay out to the side, and I rest my head on my bottom hand and pull up my leg up to my other knee in a triangle shape as if I'm laying on the couch. lol...the pic came out pretty good.
My buddy does one where he jumps, spins to to back with both his hands behind his head. like he's laying down.</p>


Those slr pics are going to look like pure fun I'm sure. Your buds dive is called "the inverted plank" lol
</p>


lol it would be, if his hands were at his sides.

My youngest brother is an idiot, he says he wants to plank a folding ladder on top of our roof. I dont know why, but I called him an idiot. Not because it's dangerous, but because planking is SOOOOOO 2010!!!
Now it's all about owling and gargoyling!!!</p>It takes time to develop the curvature of your feet needed for highend owling/gargoyling. If you were lucky, your parents would of started you walking on cylindrical shaped objects from an early age.

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 03:11 PM
Q: A 10-6 record. A 7th-ranked defense. Eli Manning (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5526)
throws for more than 4,000 yards and 30-plus touchdowns but has 30
turnovers, which plagued the whole team. Tom Coughlin is known for
correcting turnover issues (Tiki Barber (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=1218)). Can the Giants realistically be a Super Bowl contender if the number of turnovers is reduced?

James in Trenton, N.J.</p>

A: Yes,
I think they can, but I have two concerns: linebacker and offensive
line. The linebacking corps is very talented and seems always to be in
transition. The offensive line is old, and I don't see enough young
potential starters ready to step up and help out. Because the NFC East
plays the NFC West, the Giants have a great chance to go 3-1 or 4-0 in
those games. If they can do that, they can get to 11 wins and have a
chance at winning the division, and that's the first step to making a
Super Bowl run.</p>


</p>we could have the number one ranked defense, as long as the giants continue to not close out the games in the 3rd and 4th quarter we wont make the playoffs. the defense is this teams achilles heal. and our linebacker core is not talented. decent at best.
We do need a closing linebacker squad that takes the turf like that pitcher the Yankees has. The stadium can blare Enter the Sandman by Metallica and we can force 3 and outs through entire 4th quarters.
put mo in as linebacker? i like it. youre falling to the daaark siiiiede.

i dont think we need another linebacker. or need one enough to go out and get one. fewells scheme doesnt call for it.

shocknaweny
07-25-2011, 03:14 PM
Hey all !</P>


<FONT size=5>FOOTBALL !!!!</FONT></P>


</P>


I am excited for FA tostart !</P>

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 03:14 PM
It takes time to develop the curvature of your feet needed for highend owling/gargoyling. If you were lucky, your parents would of started you walking on cylindrical shaped objects from an early age.
</P>


lmao
Well I dont know about all that. I only go barefoot at the pool and at home. and I'm kinda flatfooted, so that might be an issue. I can't wear shoes while owling? lol</P>

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 03:16 PM
put mo in as linebacker? i like it. youre falling to the daaark siiiiede.

i dont think we need another linebacker. or need one enough to go out and get one. fewells scheme doesnt call for it.
</P>


his one formation with the safety behind the backers worked pretty well. I wonder if we can do that again with who we have.</P>

patsrule666
07-25-2011, 03:18 PM
Whats this i am hearing? Kiwi to the Patriots?? :)

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 03:19 PM
Whats this i am hearing? Kiwi to the Patriots?? :)no noo noooo

Morehead State
07-25-2011, 03:19 PM
Hey all !</P>


<FONT size=5>FOOTBALL !!!!</FONT></P>


</P>


I am excited for FA tostart !</P>


</P>


What about the Argo's.</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 03:24 PM
Whats this i am hearing? Kiwi to the Patriots?? :)uggh. A leader for their squad?

shocknaweny
07-25-2011, 03:25 PM
Hey all !</P>


<FONT size=5>FOOTBALL !!!!</FONT></P>


</P>


I am excited for FA tostart !</P>


</P>


What about the Argo's.</P>


</P>


</P>


They got smoked by Winnipeg last week ...lol I dunno if I can even name 5 players on Argo's...I know Cleo Lemon is their starting QB though....lmao</P>

ny06
07-25-2011, 03:25 PM
Whats this i am hearing? Kiwi to the Patriots?? :)</P>


I could see that, Bill Belichick likes to have players who can move around on defense. You can put Kiwi at D-end, d-tackle, and linebacker on occasions. </P>


But depending on what happens to Osi, I feel the Giants will give Kiwi a 1 year deal. </P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 03:25 PM
<div id="breaking-news">
<h3>Player reps vote unanimously to approve labor deal</h3>


Joint press conference with commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith happening now.

More (http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d820f4c7f&amp;module=HP11_breaking_news )</p>


</p>

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820f4c7f/article/vote-now-in-hands-of-brady-plaintiffs-after-player-reps-approve-deal?module=HP11_breaking_news (http://)


</p>
</div>

shocknaweny
07-25-2011, 03:26 PM
Whats this i am hearing? Kiwi to the Patriots?? :)</P>


</P>


I would like to keep Kiwanuka but if Osi gets a deal that just won't happen....I wouldn't have a problem with him getting a payday from the Patriots....better there than the Iggles or Wash. !!!</P>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 03:27 PM
Whats this i am hearing? Kiwi to the Patriots?? :)</p>


I could see that, Bill Belichick likes to have players who can move around on defense. You can put Kiwi at D-end, d-tackle, and linebacker on occasions. </p>


But depending on what happens to Osi, I feel the Giants will give Kiwi a 1 year deal. </p>NY-The new sig gives me chills!! Let's play some ball!

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 03:31 PM
Whats this i am hearing? Kiwi to the Patriots?? :)</P>


I could see that, Bill Belichick likes to have players who can move around on defense. You can put Kiwi at D-end, d-tackle, and linebacker on occasions. </P>


But depending on what happens to Osi, I feel the Giants will give Kiwi a 1 year deal. </P>


NY-The new sig gives me chills!! Let's play some ball!
</P>


gives you wood....liar.</P>

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 03:40 PM
Imagine Osi holds this whole thing up.

LMAO

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 03:43 PM
You told us when this happened. I have been reading alot about her. She seemed like a hell of a woman that loved football. It's sad. Cancer is personally affecting my life and seems to affect almost everyone these days. Found this from Peter King.

At least 10 people who were at the Myra Kraft funeral service Friday
said Jonathan Kraft -- son of Robert and Myra, president of the Patriots
-- gave one of the most memorable eulogies they'd ever heard. How about
this part of it.

On a trip to South Africa when apartheid
still was the law of the land, Jonathan and his mom saw some blacks
being arrested in Johannesburg for not having the proper documentation.
Myra Kraft told a police officer: "I don't have the proper
documentation. Arrest me too.'' She held out her hands to be handcuffed
and demanded to be arrested. Jonathan, in college at the time, literally
picked up his diminutive mother and took her away from the scene. "She
was beating me on the back of the head,'' he said, wanting to be put
down so she could go back.</p>

We overstate the value and goodness of a lot of people -- famous and
otherwise -- but it would be hard to overstate the generosity and
humanity of Myra Kraft.</p><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;">

</div><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;">

</div>

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 03:48 PM
he updated timeline:

•Monday: The NFL will announce that teams can go to 90-man rosters and the official free-agent list will be distributed to teams.</p>

•Tuesday:
Trading begins. Teams can reach agreements with rookies and undrafted
free agents beginning at 10 a.m. ET. Teams can reach agreements with all
free agents and signed players are allowed to enter team facilities.</p>

•Wednesday:
Players can begin reporting to training camps 15 days before their
first preseason games. According to the proposed timeline, 10 teams
would report on Wednesday, 10 more on Thursday and 10 additional teams
on Friday. The New York Jets (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyj/new-york-jets) and Houston Texans (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/hou/houston-texans) would be the last two teams to report, on Sunday.</p>

•Thursday: Teams can begin to cut players at 4 p.m. ET.</p>

•Friday: Teams can begin filing transactions to the league office at 6 p.m. ET.</p>

•Aug. 4: Deadline for recertification and ratification of the collective bargaining agreement by the players.</p>

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 04:07 PM
he updated timeline:

•Monday: The NFL will announce that teams can go to 90-man rosters and the official free-agent list will be distributed to teams.</p>

•Tuesday:
Trading begins. Teams can reach agreements with rookies and undrafted
free agents beginning at 10 a.m. ET. Teams can reach agreements with all
free agents and signed players are allowed to enter team facilities.</p>

•Wednesday:
Players can begin reporting to training camps 15 days before their
first preseason games. According to the proposed timeline, 10 teams
would report on Wednesday, 10 more on Thursday and 10 additional teams
on Friday. The New York Jets (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyj/new-york-jets) and Houston Texans (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/hou/houston-texans) would be the last two teams to report, on Sunday.</p>

•Thursday: Teams can begin to cut players at 4 p.m. ET.</p>

•Friday: Teams can begin filing transactions to the league office at 6 p.m. ET.</p>

•Aug. 4: Deadline for recertification and ratification of the collective bargaining agreement by the players.</p>Very cool, it's upon us. Let the insanity begin. This week is gonna be nuts. Perfect opportunity for our front office to take advantage of the situation.

dezzzR
07-25-2011, 04:15 PM
training camp friiiiiday. [:D]
"i can feel the juices flowin back to my balls as we speak."

lttaylor56
07-25-2011, 04:27 PM
If this does not make your heart beat faster, your not a fan.

http://www.giants.com/assets/images/Email-Blasts/Football%20is%20Back/football-back-bigblue.jpg (http://link.giants.com/r/9ZGDGL/P4HS/180LHXP/HDEVE/1XR4/ZH/h)

http://www.giants.com/assets/images/Email-Blasts/Football%20is%20Back/football-back-video.jpg (http://link.giants.com/r/9ZGDGL/P4HS/180LHXP/HDEVE/Z4S5/ZH/h)

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 04:54 PM
<a href="http://www.fftoday.com/stats/players/2832/Ahmad_Bradshaw" class="emphasisnumber">Ahmad
Bradshaw, RB

</a><span class="headlinegrey">Teams that should be interested:</span>
Cincinnati, Denver, Indianapolis, Miami, NY Giants</p>


<span class="headlinegrey">http://www.fftoday.com/common/logo_nyg_50.gifPredicted
final destination and fantasy impact:</span> <span class="headline">Giants.</span>
Bradshaw should be the second domino to fall on the RB market
– assuming the Giants don’t re-sign him during the now-in-question
three-day window that teams will have to negotiate with their
own free agents – but if he somehow is allowed on the market,
expect the Giants to match any offer. With that said, the Broncos
could definitely be in play should DeAngelo Williams elect to
stay with Carolina. Three years younger than the 28-year-old Williams,
Bradshaw may actually be a more coveted option for Denver. The
Dolphins could scrap their plan to add a scatback like Darren
Sproles and instead find a big-play complement for Daniel Thomas;
however, I tend to believe that will not happen. Admittedly, two
of the teams above (Colts, Bengals) are extreme longshots (neither
team has much history spending big dollars early in free agency)
but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that Indianapolis
passes on re-signing Joseph Addai and decides to bring a young
big-play element into its backfield alongside rookie Delone Carter
– the RB the team hopes will help address its short-yardage woes.
The Bengals are a slightly lesser longshot, but with Cedric Benson’s
most recent arrest, one would hope Cincinnati considers other
backfield options (although if it does, I expect a cheaper talent
like Jason Snelling or restricted free agent Michael Bush). Because
it has been so long since the Bengals possessed a big-play threat
in the backfield, perhaps they would trust a player like Bradshaw
– someone who has produced while playing in pain. If Bradshaw
does remain in New York as many expect – and it will be tough
with the <a href="http://realredskins.com/2011/07/skins-sitting-in-good-cap-shape-cowboys-giants-face-problems/">Giants’
salary cap situation</a> – he should start coming off the board
in the early part of the third round at the latest in 12-team
leagues.</p>

JPizzack
07-25-2011, 04:57 PM
That video doesnt work from here, but I'm sure I'll watch it later;)</P>


That pic of Nicks is in my sig that Amanda made me last year though!</P>

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 05:09 PM
Ronnie Brown and Reggie Bush could be fallout options for the Giants.

I like either of them<font size="5"> if </font>they can stay healthy...

lawl
07-25-2011, 05:11 PM
Ronnie Brown and Reggie Bush could be fallout options for the Giants.

I like either of them<FONT size=5> if </FONT>they can stay healthy...
</P>


They're both washed up, and Reggie is only good for like 5 carries a game.</P>


I'd like to see a guy like Snelling get a shot here.</P>

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 05:36 PM
Ronnie Brown and Reggie Bush could be fallout options for the Giants.

I like either of them<font size="5"> if </font>they can stay healthy...
</p>


They're both washed up, and Reggie is only good for like 5 carries a game.</p>


I'd like to see a guy like Snelling get a shot here.</p>
Pats mentioned him to. With him and Jacobs it would be a tough task for opposing D's in the 4th.

bigblue4417
07-25-2011, 05:43 PM
"Hopefully I'm a Giant next year, but if the Dolphins are interested, I gotta look at my options."

"I love New York more than anything, and I'd love to be here."

Bradshaw is saying the right things but....