From the looks of that chart, we better ban alcohol and tobacco, because that would surely decrease use and abuse, and lessen the clear negative impact those drugs have on society.
Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc., has said it doesn't have $12 billion, and credit-rating companies have said the cigarette maker may be forced into bankruptcy by the bond. The company's request has drawn support from 37 states that were part of a $208 billion settlement with the tobacco industry in 1998. The states are concerned Philip Morris won't be able to make its next installment on the settlement: $2.5 billion due April 15.
You'd think the states would want the evil tobacco company to go bankrupt.
would that be the world where everyone who doesn't fall in line lockstep with jethro's opinion is imprisoned? i don't think so. and don't talk to be about the folks over in bizarre hatred. you're just pissed because you can't go over there and spew your uber-conservative bs and have it be welcomed.
ThoseMedallingKids wrote: No, it won't be up to Jethro what the world will be like. It will be up to the states. Jethro will stay out of all that.
ares response: well unless it involves drugs or anything else he doesn't like.
I can see the kids understand me fairly well. ares does not. But I wouldn't stay out of the issues. I would participate in the political process just like everyone else.
in all fairness, i agree. of course, in the thread jethro likes to prance around in, he should know he's not welcome. it says so right in the thread header. hey, if you decided to put up a conservative slanted thread here and put something similar in the header, i'd keep my mouth shut in it.
It doesn't please me that people dope themselves up.
so what?
the key word in what you said there is"themselves".
the deal is "do what you please and don't prevent others from doing what they please", not "be pleased by what others do or prevent them from doing it"
as long as it doesn't prevent you from doing what you please, I don't give a fuck if what I do pleases you anymore than you would give a fuck if what you do doesn't please me.
so, explain again why you have any right over deciding what pleases me?
I mean, it would please me to see you in a clown suit, but I'm not advocating a law that says you have to wear one. I have no right to tell you what to wear.
well, I can tell you that your language doesn't please me. It just proves the selfish nature of the beast. You damn doper.
so, are you advocating outlawing language you don't like as well?
How can you say you would be fine with prohibiting tobacco and alcohol? Do you two honestly not recognize the historical lesson from the first Prohibition?
How can you say you would be fine with prohibiting tobacco and alcohol? Do you two honestly not recognize the historical lesson from the first Prohibition?
Again I offer abortion as an example. Sure, they still happened when they were illegal, but not nearly in the numbers now that they are legal.
You are the one advocating basing the law on what pleases you. Don't you get it?
that's exactly what I'm notadvocating. I'm advocating getting rid of the laws, not basing them on anything. And certainly not basing them on what may or may not please me or you.
Hey Crabs, If you want THX to pay for your health care, will you be willing to pay for my dope?
tell ya what...if I have only one joint, you can smoke half of it, okay?
of course, if it was legal, your dope would be dirt cheap, literally.
of course, the practical result of this was that rich women still had them and poor women risked their health because of it. A lack of fairness in it's execution is a good indicator of a bad law.
Well there has to be some basis for the laws. A rhyme or reason to it. If the laws are so bad, why don't we have more wanting to get rid of all the laws? And can we really think of getting rid of the laws, or totally reworking them? Can we totally change a society's laws?
Well there has to be some basis for the laws. A rhyme or reason to it.
there is. they were passed as a way to protect certain businessmen's interests...one of whom was a powerful and outspoken publisher who also happened to be racist. In order to get support for the laws meant to unfairly protect his business, he appealed to racism, villifying mexicans and blacks by means of a propoganda campaign aimed to make people think that drugs caused black men to rape white women. The slander and stereotypes exist to this day.
If the laws are so bad, why don't we have more wanting to get rid of all the laws?
I don't know...why did it take us so long to get rid of slavery?
I don't really know what laws we need. You say we need laws to prevent one person from infringing on the rights of another person. It kind of seems like it's in the eye of the beholder. Martha Burk feels that she has a right to protest about the rights of women to be members at Augusta National. Augusta National feels it has the right to not have female members. Who is to say who is right? I think there will be a fair amount of gray area in which people won't be happy.
Columbia voters on Tuesday turned down a proposal to legalize the medical use of marijuana and soften municipal penalties. Final returns showed the measure failing, 57.8 percent to 42.2 percent.
I just saw a PSA about black dope smokers raping white women
are you saying that there aren't stereotypes of blacks as evil drug-selling thugs?
seen that movie Traffic?
speaking of PSAs...seen that one that tries to dispel the "black inner city criminal" stereotype by pointing out that the white kids in the 'burbs do drugs just like those black people do.
now, if the stereotypes didn't still exist, why would they need a commercial to dispel it?
From the looks of that chart, we better ban alcohol and tobacco, because that would surely decrease use and abuse, and lessen the clear negative impact those drugs have on society.
Fine by me.
I could live with that as well.
how about we just let people do as they please?
how about we just let people do as they please?
not disagreeing, but that would require people to take self-responsibility
::gasp!::
how about we just let people do as they please?
Does that mean I get to slap you silly?
:-)
Proof that greedy states care more about the money, than they do about health.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=a8d90cK4DQhA&refer=home
Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc., has said it doesn't have $12 billion, and credit-rating companies have said the cigarette maker may be forced into bankruptcy by the bond. The company's request has drawn support from 37 states that were part of a $208 billion settlement with the tobacco industry in 1998. The states are concerned Philip Morris won't be able to make its next installment on the settlement: $2.5 billion due April 15.
You'd think the states would want the evil tobacco company to go bankrupt.
No, they just want to cripple it so they can catch it whenever they need more money.
if it pleases me, sure
if it doesn't please me, then you wouldn't be letting people do as they please, now would you?
again, how about letting people do as they please?
It doesn't please me that people dope themselves up.
So, not pleasing you is a good reason for a law against it?
No. But I suppose it is as good a reason for having or not having a law based on the idea that it pleases someone.
da da da da. da da da da. jethro's world
Well, I can tell you "jethro's world" would be a much better place than the world that would be created by your buddies at Bizarre Hatred, ares.
would that be the world where everyone who doesn't fall in line lockstep with jethro's opinion is imprisoned? i don't think so. and don't talk to be about the folks over in bizarre hatred. you're just pissed because you can't go over there and spew your uber-conservative bs and have it be welcomed.
No, it won't be up to Jethro what the world will be like. It will be up to the states. Jethro will stay out of all that.
well unless it involves drugs or anything else he doesn't like.
and don't talk to be about the folks over in bizarre hatred.
I'll talk about them all I want. They are a hate filled group of people that would be much more dangerous with power than the jethro's of the world.
you're just pissed because you can't go over there and spew your uber-conservative bs and have it be welcomed.
They are closed-minded, intolerant bunch. I see why you like it over there. You are a lot like them.
ThoseMedallingKids wrote: No, it won't be up to Jethro what the world will be like. It will be up to the states. Jethro will stay out of all that.
ares response: well unless it involves drugs or anything else he doesn't like.
I can see the kids understand me fairly well. ares does not. But I wouldn't stay out of the issues. I would participate in the political process just like everyone else.
and i can see you don't understand the concept of sarcasm at all.
would that be the world where everyone who doesn't fall in line lockstep with jethro's opinion is imprisoned?
In all fairness, the BHoRC gang is pretty intolerant themselves. They don't like us ignorant Conservatives over there messing the place up.
:-)
in all fairness, i agree. of course, in the thread jethro likes to prance around in, he should know he's not welcome. it says so right in the thread header. hey, if you decided to put up a conservative slanted thread here and put something similar in the header, i'd keep my mouth shut in it.
Why isn't Jethro welcome?
so what?
the key word in what you said there is "themselves".
the deal is "do what you please and don't prevent others from doing what they please", not "be pleased by what others do or prevent them from doing it"
as long as it doesn't prevent you from doing what you please, I don't give a fuck if what I do pleases you anymore than you would give a fuck if what you do doesn't please me.
the key words for you, crabs, is "please me."
I don't give a fuck if what I do pleases you anymore than you would give a fuck if what you do doesn't please me
well, I can tell you that your language doesn't please me. It just proves the selfish nature of the beast. You damn doper.
so, explain again why you have any right over deciding what pleases me?
I mean, it would please me to see you in a clown suit, but I'm not advocating a law that says you have to wear one. I have no right to tell you what to wear.
so, are you advocating outlawing language you don't like as well?
so, explain again why you have any right over deciding what pleases me?
Basing law on what please you would be an irrelevant discussion.
so, are you advocating outlawing language you don't like as well?
You are the one advocating basing the law on what pleases you. Don't you get it? Or have you been smoking to much weed today?
Hey Crabs, If you want THX to pay for your health care, will you be willing to pay for my dope?
THX's post of the day:
"Hey Crabs, If you want THX to pay for your health care, will you be willing to pay for my dope?"
How can you say you would be fine with prohibiting tobacco and alcohol? Do you two honestly not recognize the historical lesson from the first Prohibition?
Prohibition: It may have given birth to the Mob, but at least we got to moralize through government for a while!
How can you say you would be fine with prohibiting tobacco and alcohol? Do you two honestly not recognize the historical lesson from the first Prohibition?
Again I offer abortion as an example. Sure, they still happened when they were illegal, but not nearly in the numbers now that they are legal.
that's exactly what I'm notadvocating. I'm advocating getting rid of the laws, not basing them on anything. And certainly not basing them on what may or may not please me or you.
tell ya what...if I have only one joint, you can smoke half of it, okay?
of course, if it was legal, your dope would be dirt cheap, literally.
of course, the practical result of this was that rich women still had them and poor women risked their health because of it. A lack of fairness in it's execution is a good indicator of a bad law.
Hemp For Victory!
"Just as in the days when Old Ironsides sailed the seas victorious with her hempen shrouds and hempen sails. Hemp for victory."
- this message brought to you by the US Department of Agriculture
Getting rid of the laws and not basing them on anything? So we won't have laws? Or if we will, they won't be based on anything. Just whatever?
not "whatever"
the laws are to prevent anyone from infringing on someone's personal freedoms.
these laws don't do that. they do the opposite.
they don't protect anyone from anyone else.
Well there has to be some basis for the laws. A rhyme or reason to it. If the laws are so bad, why don't we have more wanting to get rid of all the laws? And can we really think of getting rid of the laws, or totally reworking them? Can we totally change a society's laws?
there is. they were passed as a way to protect certain businessmen's interests...one of whom was a powerful and outspoken publisher who also happened to be racist. In order to get support for the laws meant to unfairly protect his business, he appealed to racism, villifying mexicans and blacks by means of a propoganda campaign aimed to make people think that drugs caused black men to rape white women. The slander and stereotypes exist to this day.
I don't know...why did it take us so long to get rid of slavery?
what laws exactly are you talking about?
besides those laws that seek to prevent one person from infringing on the rights of another person, what laws do you think we need?
I don't really know what laws we need. You say we need laws to prevent one person from infringing on the rights of another person. It kind of seems like it's in the eye of the beholder. Martha Burk feels that she has a right to protest about the rights of women to be members at Augusta National. Augusta National feels it has the right to not have female members. Who is to say who is right? I think there will be a fair amount of gray area in which people won't be happy.
but still, what laws do you want that don't have at their root the desire to protect someone from infringing on someone else's rights?
I mean besides wanting to try to force people to not take drugs?
The slander and stereotypes exist to this day.
Yeah right, I just saw a PSA about black dope smokers raping white women.
Democracy at work:
Columbia voters on Tuesday turned down a proposal to legalize the medical use of marijuana and soften municipal penalties. Final returns showed the measure failing, 57.8 percent to 42.2 percent.
http://digmo.com/news/story.php?ID=1439
are you saying that there aren't stereotypes of blacks as evil drug-selling thugs?
seen that movie Traffic?
speaking of PSAs...seen that one that tries to dispel the "black inner city criminal" stereotype by pointing out that the white kids in the 'burbs do drugs just like those black people do.
now, if the stereotypes didn't still exist, why would they need a commercial to dispel it?
There's all sorts of stereotypes and prejudice in the world.
That doesn't mean drug laws are inherently racist.
Oh, and No, I have not seen Traffic.
yes, yes there are. and when those prejudices and stereotypes are given access to the power of law, it makes for bad law.
they are historically racist
they are decidedly racist in thier execution
it's just the facts