No. I base winning on my clear ability to fluster you so much that you are reduced to making personal attacks. As long as personal attacks are what you use to argue with, I will win every time.
You are incapable of winning anything, Janice or crabs or whoever you are. You obviously do not contest the fact that you misrepresented my position. You can't win anything with that tactic. I suggest you go waste your time somewhere else.
Since I didn't ever express an opinion on that question you obviously misrepresented my position. Furthermore, the answer to the question has nothing to do with the point I made which was that more people will drive intoxicated if it were not a crime. More people will do drugs if they are legal and more people that do drugs now will do more drugs since they will be easier to get and presumably cheaper.
Anyone who wants alcohol can go get it anytime they want, drink as much as they want in public, drive while intoxicated, kill pedestrians and other innocent motorists, beat their children, hospitalize their spouses, lose their jobs, go on welfare, and keep drinking the entire time.
since we tried prohibition and it made things worse...and since people can use drugs and alcohol and NOT drive while intoxicated, kill pedestrians and other innocent motorists, beat their children, hospitalize their spouses, lose their jobs or go on welfare, perhaps we should stop blaming the drugs and deal with the actual problems...BTW, driving while intoxicated, killing pedestrians or motorists, beating children and spouses are all currently illegal and would still be without the drug laws. People who DON'T take drugs or drink also lose their jobs sometimes and even go on welfare.
as a matter of fact, all of the above behaviors have been seen in people who drink milk, so why don't we outlaw milk too?
Crabgrass has had the same moniker for at least the past year and a half that I have known him.
actually, crabgrass is the ONLY name I have used for several years is exclusively the name I have used on PF....not that I care if Bodine (or whoever he or Sam or Iceman or whoever he is this week) believes or cares about it.
since we tried prohibition and it made things worse... No that is your opinion. "Things" were not worse. The problem was that the people wanted to drink.and since people can use drugs and alcohol and NOT drive while intoxicated, kill pedestrians and other innocent motorists, beat their children, hospitalize their spouses, lose their jobs or go on welfare, perhaps we should stop blaming the drugs and deal with the actual problems.. Maybe they should just be shot.
The problem was that people wanted to drink. I see. So the organized crime the law created wasn't a problem then? You overstate that problem for your own ends. There was crime before prohibition and there is crime after it.
and maybe people who want to fuck with people who aren't hurting anyone should be shot. Maybe we should go out in the street and shoot at each other until one of us is dead.
Prohibition didn't create anything. People commit crimes.
this is just ignorant.
prohibition created the opportunity for people to make a LOT of money by organizing the selling of a prohibited substance. This would not happen if the substance isn't prohibited.
You overstate that problem for your own ends. There was crime before prohibition and there is crime after it.
However, the CRIME of DRINKING ALCOHOL created great problems, gave the organized crime syndicates another vice to bootleg, thereby creating more "criminals" which ipso facto, costs the taxpayer more money than it does now that it is legal.
The day there's another seious attempt at alcohol prohibition would be the day I got political in a big rockin' way.
Exactly our problem with the prohibition of other substances.
People commit crimes.
If alcohol were legal at that time, the people who drank alcohol would NOT be criminals. One of these days you're going to get this.
prohibition created the opportunity for people to make a LOT of money by organizing the selling of a prohibited substance. This would not happen if the substance isn't prohibited.
Exactly Crabgrass! Pay attention Bodine: This exact situation is how the Crypts and the Bloods got all their money to buy guns and ammunition to blow innocent babies away in their own front yards, by bootlegging illegal substances, something they COULD NOT DO if it were legal with the properly applied laws as alcohol and cigarettes now enjoy. Do you have any idea why there is a law organization dedicated SOLELY to Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms? They are called the ATF. They uphold the laws that pertain to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Now why do they do that do you suppose? Could it be because WE THE PEOPLE WANT TO DRINK AND SMOKE AND FIRE OFF OUR BB GUNS?
Go to hell, crabs. it is people like you that perpetuate problems. it is ignorance run amok.
Lost the arguement AGAIN! CRABGRASS WINS!
you are losing a war against a bunch of people who are on drugs.
Awww MAN! Now there's coffee all over my computer! LOL!
You are only winning in your doped up mind.
We win each and every time we reduce you to name calling in defense of your antiquated opinion instead of offering substantial discussion to support your opinion.
However, the CRIME of DRINKING ALCOHOL created great problems, gave the organized crime syndicates another vice to bootleg, thereby creating more "criminals" which ipso facto, costs the taxpayer more money than it does now that it is legal.
Enforcing any law costs taxpayers more than if we simply ignored it or made it legal.
Crabby, what sort of age restrictions would place on drug use?
I would put all adult activity legal at the age of 20 years old.
Also, I would like to point out that currently on my block alone, out of 20 children from the age of 12 to 18, 2 of them drink alcohol (which is legal) 5 of them smoke cigarettes (which is legal) 15 of them smoke glass (which is illegal) and all of them smoke pot (which is also illegal) So the so called war on drugs is a total failure.
Your neighbors must have amazing parenting skills.
Judgemental to the bone aren'tcha? Most of my neighbors have to work two jobs just to support their children. Kinda hard to lock them up when you're at work.
Bad parenting may lead to drug abuse, but from talking to the kids I find that they have never spoken to their parents about drugs because they are illegal. They have discussed alcohol and tobacco with their parents, because those are legal and their parent will not freak out about talking about those. So where do you live? In a lily white neighborhood full of middleclass people who have the nice house and two cars in the garage and a pool in the backyard? Come to LA. See for yourself what people have to do to survive here. Not LIVE mind you. Just survive.
LOL. You just had to ask where I live, didn't you?
Sorry, but it's sort of an inside joke. SOME don't seem to believe me when I say where I live. Just like you're automatically assuming, no one as lilly white as me can live where I say I do.
Anyway, I can quote one person that didn't believe where I lived as saying a street corner near my house is "Ghetto Central".
Of course we're talking St Paul MN, which is a far cry from LA, but we have our share of murder, drive by's, & drug dealers, thefts, assaults, domestics. Lots of domestics. Families just can't seem to get along these days.
Back to the point... What is your point? Are you saying poor people are more prone to do drug use? That they can't possibly act like civilized people?
If the name of the game in LA is to just survive, does doing drugs help you survive? I would think it just costs too much money with not really helping you get a better life.
I couldn't carry enough guns or ammo to even visit L.A. People make the neighborhood..."live" with it or get out. 12 year olds smok'in dope eh? How nice. The future of America right in L.A.
You think street gangs would disappear if drugs were legalized?
to some extent, yes.
since much of it is their due to the profit it provides, yes...it would get better. Now, that's another problem with prohibition, once you have CREATED the underground, it doesn't just want to go away. "Gangs" have a history, and yes...the gangs that alcohol prohibition brought to, say Chicago, largely did disappear (heard of any bootleg whiskey Mafia kingpins lately?). Now, maybe they looked around for the next thing they can profit from due to it's "prohibited" nature...gambling and prostitution. Will making it legal eliminate bad people? No. Will it eliminate the funding of gangs (and terrorists...remember about the terrorists?) due to the loss of an illegal profit motive. WIll people suddenly start taking drugs? If they were to, they can already do it now, many years into the "war", in many cases easier than if they were legal and controlled....and without the sober couselling and medical care allowed to those who become ill. We shouldn't allow a medical illness (addiction) to be seen as a criminal act. And beyond those who are ill, there are countless number of people who use drugs without being ill (as a matter of fact, drugs are a massively popular way to prevent illness) and who do NO HARM to society. These people also are not criminal simply due to use of a substance and should NOT BE SEEN AS SUCH.
ROFL!
So math is not your strong suit eh?
You became so flustered by my brilliant logic that you resorted to personal attacks.
I win.
NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH!
LOL!
If you consider winning based on misrepresenting my point of view then you will never lose-in your own mind.
No. I base winning on my clear ability to fluster you so much that you are reduced to making personal attacks.
As long as personal attacks are what you use to argue with, I will win every time.
You are incapable of winning anything, Janice or crabs or whoever you are. You obviously do not contest the fact that you misrepresented my position. You can't win anything with that tactic. I suggest you go waste your time somewhere else.
I misrepresented your position?
Well, then we certainly need to straighten this out!
Do you think alcohol should be legal or not?
And for your edification, Crabgrass has had the same moniker for at least the past year and a half that I have known him.
Do you think alcohol should be legal or not?
Since I didn't ever express an opinion on that question you obviously misrepresented my position. Furthermore, the answer to the question has nothing to do with the point I made which was that more people will drive intoxicated if it were not a crime. More people will do drugs if they are legal and more people that do drugs now will do more drugs since they will be easier to get and presumably cheaper.
And for your edification, Crabgrass has had the same moniker for at least the past year and a half that I have known him.
As if I care...or believe it.
since we tried prohibition and it made things worse...and since people can use drugs and alcohol and NOT drive while intoxicated, kill pedestrians and other innocent motorists, beat their children, hospitalize their spouses, lose their jobs or go on welfare, perhaps we should stop blaming the drugs and deal with the actual problems...BTW, driving while intoxicated, killing pedestrians or motorists, beating children and spouses are all currently illegal and would still be without the drug laws. People who DON'T take drugs or drink also lose their jobs sometimes and even go on welfare.
as a matter of fact, all of the above behaviors have been seen in people who drink milk, so why don't we outlaw milk too?
actually, crabgrass is the ONLY name I have used for several years is exclusively the name I have used on PF....not that I care if Bodine (or whoever he or Sam or Iceman or whoever he is this week) believes or cares about it.
since we tried prohibition and it made things worse... No that is your opinion. "Things" were not worse. The problem was that the people wanted to drink.and since people can use drugs and alcohol and NOT drive while intoxicated, kill pedestrians and other innocent motorists, beat their children, hospitalize their spouses, lose their jobs or go on welfare, perhaps we should stop blaming the drugs and deal with the actual problems.. Maybe they should just be shot.
The problem was that people wanted to drink. I see. So the organized crime the law created wasn't a problem then?
and maybe people who want to fuck with people who aren't hurting anyone should be shot.
that would put you in the crosshairs, bodine.
The problem was that people wanted to drink. I see. So the organized crime the law created wasn't a problem then? You overstate that problem for your own ends. There was crime before prohibition and there is crime after it.
and maybe people who want to fuck with people who aren't hurting anyone should be shot. Maybe we should go out in the street and shoot at each other until one of us is dead.
The day there's another seious attempt at alcohol prohibition would be the day I got political in a big rockin' way.
why, Rick? are you a drunk?
prohibition CREATED an organized crime problem that did not previously exist.
prohibition laws CREATE crime.
shut the fuck up crackhead...
bogart the pipe a few times and jackass gets testy
prohibition CREATED an organized crime problem that did not previously exist.
Prohibition didn't create anything. People commit crimes.
this is just ignorant.
prohibition created the opportunity for people to make a LOT of money by organizing the selling of a prohibited substance. This would not happen if the substance isn't prohibited.
Go to hell, crabs. it is people like you that perpetuate problems. it is ignorance run amok.
you are losing a war against a bunch of people who are on drugs.
you are losing a war against a bunch of people who are on drugs.
You are only winning in your doped up mind.
Crabby, what sort of age restrictions would place on drug use?
The problem was that the people wanted to drink.
DUH!
Maybe they should just be shot.
Fascist statement.
You overstate that problem for your own ends. There was crime before prohibition and there is crime after it.
However, the CRIME of DRINKING ALCOHOL created great problems, gave the organized crime syndicates another vice to bootleg, thereby creating more "criminals" which ipso facto, costs the taxpayer more money than it does now that it is legal.
The day there's another seious attempt at alcohol prohibition would be the day I got political in a big rockin' way.
Exactly our problem with the prohibition of other substances.
People commit crimes.
If alcohol were legal at that time, the people who drank alcohol would NOT be criminals.
One of these days you're going to get this.
prohibition created the opportunity for people to make a LOT of money by organizing the selling of a prohibited substance. This would not happen if the substance isn't prohibited.
Exactly Crabgrass! Pay attention Bodine:
This exact situation is how the Crypts and the Bloods got all their money to buy guns and ammunition to blow innocent babies away in their own front yards, by bootlegging illegal substances, something they COULD NOT DO if it were legal with the properly applied laws as alcohol and cigarettes now enjoy.
Do you have any idea why there is a law organization dedicated SOLELY to Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms?
They are called the ATF.
They uphold the laws that pertain to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
Now why do they do that do you suppose?
Could it be because WE THE PEOPLE WANT TO DRINK AND SMOKE AND FIRE OFF OUR BB GUNS?
Go to hell, crabs. it is people like you that perpetuate problems. it is ignorance run amok.
Lost the arguement AGAIN!
CRABGRASS WINS!
you are losing a war against a bunch of people who are on drugs.
Awww MAN! Now there's coffee all over my computer! LOL!
You are only winning in your doped up mind.
We win each and every time we reduce you to name calling in defense of your antiquated opinion instead of offering substantial discussion to support your opinion.
However, the CRIME of DRINKING ALCOHOL created great problems, gave the organized crime syndicates another vice to bootleg, thereby creating more "criminals" which ipso facto, costs the taxpayer more money than it does now that it is legal.
Enforcing any law costs taxpayers more than if we simply ignored it or made it legal.
Crabby, what sort of age restrictions would place on drug use?
I would put all adult activity legal at the age of 20 years old.
Also, I would like to point out that currently on my block alone, out of 20 children from the age of 12 to 18, 2 of them drink alcohol (which is legal) 5 of them smoke cigarettes (which is legal) 15 of them smoke glass (which is illegal) and all of them smoke pot (which is also illegal) So the so called war on drugs is a total failure.
Nice little neighborhood you live in.
Your neighbors must have amazing parenting skills.
Enforcing any law costs taxpayers more than if we simply ignored it or made it legal.
Correct. And right now the taxpayers are paying 5 times as much as they would pay if substances were legal.
Your neighbors must have amazing parenting skills.
Judgemental to the bone aren'tcha?
Most of my neighbors have to work two jobs just to support their children. Kinda hard to lock them up when you're at work.
I'm sure it costs even more to keep murderers locked up.
Think of the money we'll save if we just let them go.
You are equating murder of another human being with the self abuse of drug use. Shall we get real now?
Judgemental to the bone aren'tcha?
Just honest.
Most of my neighbors have to work two jobs just to support their children. Kinda hard to lock them up when you're at work.
I have a hard time believing that, but lets say for shits and giggles that you're telling the truth.
What you're basically saying is, bad parenting leads to drug use.
I could agree with that.
You are equating murder of another human being with the self abuse of drug use. Shall we get real now?
So we should allow people self abuse themselves?
What sort of sick bastard are you?
Bad parenting may lead to drug abuse, but from talking to the kids I find that they have never spoken to their parents about drugs because they are illegal. They have discussed alcohol and tobacco with their parents, because those are legal and their parent will not freak out about talking about those.
So where do you live? In a lily white neighborhood full of middleclass people who have the nice house and two cars in the garage and a pool in the backyard?
Come to LA.
See for yourself what people have to do to survive here.
Not LIVE mind you.
Just survive.
So we should allow people self abuse themselves?
Do you or anyone you know drink coffee, eat sugar or chocolate, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, over eat, not exercise or lay in the sun too long?
who they are.
Yep, sounds like most of the drug users I've ever known ;)
LOL. You just had to ask where I live, didn't you?
Sorry, but it's sort of an inside joke. SOME don't seem to believe me when I say where I live. Just like you're automatically assuming, no one as lilly white as me can live where I say I do.
Anyway, I can quote one person that didn't believe where I lived as saying a street corner near my house is "Ghetto Central".
Of course we're talking St Paul MN, which is a far cry from LA, but we have our share of murder, drive by's, & drug dealers, thefts, assaults, domestics. Lots of domestics. Families just can't seem to get along these days.
Back to the point... What is your point? Are you saying poor people are more prone to do drug use? That they can't possibly act like civilized people?
P.S. Please don't look my address up on the internet.
:-)
If the name of the game in LA is to just survive, does doing drugs help you survive? I would think it just costs too much money with not really helping you get a better life.
at the same age as mandatory education requirements.
you really should be sober if you are using government money to get an education...but past that, none really.
I couldn't carry enough guns or ammo to even visit L.A. People make the neighborhood..."live" with it or get out. 12 year olds smok'in dope eh? How nice. The future of America right in L.A.
It could happen anywhere.
There are parts of Los Angeles I like.
Bill Fold, you ever drive down Selby anymore?
I will admit it's gotten better since your time, but yet it's still the same in a lot of ways.
the reason you feel this way is largely due to the drug laws...you realize that, right?
the reason you feel this way is largely due to the drug laws...you realize that, right?
You think street gangs would disappear if drugs were legalized?
No, but they wouldn't be funding themselves selling illegal drugs.
to some extent, yes.
since much of it is their due to the profit it provides, yes...it would get better. Now, that's another problem with prohibition, once you have CREATED the underground, it doesn't just want to go away. "Gangs" have a history, and yes...the gangs that alcohol prohibition brought to, say Chicago, largely did disappear (heard of any bootleg whiskey Mafia kingpins lately?). Now, maybe they looked around for the next thing they can profit from due to it's "prohibited" nature...gambling and prostitution. Will making it legal eliminate bad people? No. Will it eliminate the funding of gangs (and terrorists...remember about the terrorists?) due to the loss of an illegal profit motive. WIll people suddenly start taking drugs? If they were to, they can already do it now, many years into the "war", in many cases easier than if they were legal and controlled....and without the sober couselling and medical care allowed to those who become ill. We shouldn't allow a medical illness (addiction) to be seen as a criminal act. And beyond those who are ill, there are countless number of people who use drugs without being ill (as a matter of fact, drugs are a massively popular way to prevent illness) and who do NO HARM to society. These people also are not criminal simply due to use of a substance and should NOT BE SEEN AS SUCH.
"It could happen anywhere"....Just a minute...I'm going out to count how many 12 year olds there are smok'in dope in the neighborhood.
if you actually knew, you might be surprised.