If went through the legitimate democratic process I think it would
and THIS is your idea of legitimate democratic process?
Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.
"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"
To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.
without a recorded vote, after a baldface lie concerning testimony about something that the Speaker doesn't even know what it is
You are laughable crabs. You use blacks in your examples and that's just fine. I use blacks in my examples and I'm racist...There is something wrong with you.
okay, bodine things outlawing all food except bread and water would be a good law I wouldn't like such a law. I would probably violate such a law. But hey if it was passed through a legitimate democratic process, which wouldn't happen, I would have to pay the consequences if caught.
how about if they make a law that ways all black people have to be shot on site? I don't know a society with a democratic form of government that would pass such a law.
Crab: you understand that most people who take drugs don't have ruined lives (unless they are put in jail for it)?
Jethro: No I don't understand that. Doing dope is a slow road to destruction. You may not be far down that road and you may still have time to turn off. But make no mistake where that road leads.
So former Governor Gary Johnson -- triathelete, doesn't do drugs or alcohol or even sugar -- is on a slow road to destruction? He smoked pot for years.
if you treat the situation as a strictly medical one, certainly pot, which is the single safest drug in the history of the world, doesn't merit any concern at all. It's not going to kill anyone (as a matter of fact, it is virtually impossible to overdose on it...something that can't be said of asprin)
as for harder drugs...control it.
when you make them illegal, you lose the ability to control it.
Well, let's say I'd appreciate your willingness to compromise...but no. (Though I'll take any positive change in the law I can get...I realize it's not likely to all tumble at once.)
Pot's the easy one, and the most obvious, but legalizing it only solves part of the problem. The biggest part, in terms of numbers, for sure, but not the biggest part, in terms of damage-per-unit. The criminalization of drugs and drug use makes those things more dangerous. More dangerous for those who use them, more dangerous for those who traffic in them, and more dangerous for everyone else. Prohibition is a flawed solution no matter what consensual crime is involved -- the sentence above could be applied equally as well to gambling, prostitution, and assisted suicide. And while making our least dangerous illegal drug less dangerous would be great, it doesn't really make sense to continue on making our most dangerous drugs more dangerous.
Take heroin for example. By itself, it's harmful (though that depends on who you ask), it's addictive, and it's potentially lethal.
Then make it illegal.
Harmful: The harm caused by heroin skyrockets, due to impurities, unknown potency and dosage, use of (bootleg) unsterile processing and consumption equipment, and inavailability of medical care (due to fear of arrest). Heroin is basically infinitely more dangerous when illegal.
Addictive: The drug war distorts the dialogue around drugs so much that people can hardly be said to have been given a clear picture of what drug use entails. Most of the message comes from the government/schools, and they are notoriously poor at conveying clear information about drug use. D.A.R.E. (basically, a health class taught by police officers) has been shown to have no measurable effect on the likelihood of its "students" to do drugs. The Drugs Fund Terrorism ads are being yanked because they didn't work. For a long time, "Just Say No" and the frying pan analogy, along with D.A.R.E., comprised the bulk of our preventative counsel toward youth.
Which is to say that the drug war impedes rational and open discourse about drugs and their effects. Personally, once I tried pot, and I realized how twisted all the drug rhetoric I had been fed was, I was inclined to discard all that I had "learned" about drugs from my fearless leaders. For that matter, once I made the decision to take alcohol while underage, I had already made the decision to overrule the both the guidance and the law that had been handed down to me from above, relying instead upon the guidance of my friends and myself. From that point on, the official societal attitude toward drugs was effectively irrelevant to my own attitude toward them. I didn't decide not to do heroin or cocaine because of the law, or because of anything I had been taught in school or on TV. I chose not to do them after seeking information from sources that didn't have an ulterior agenda -- and after having enough knowledge from my own experience to make relative judgments about drugs. Based on the same premise, I didn't consult the ONDCP when considering whether to take mushrooms or LSD.
Yes, the drug war probably scares some people away from ever even trying drugs, either for fear of breaking the law or because they were sold on drugs being a bad idea. But it doesn't achieve that effect with millions of others -- tens of millions who disregard fear of breaking the law, and the "drugs are bad" theory, and smoke pot anyway, and millions more who take further steps over that line. Those folks -- millions of people -- are by and large untouched by either the rhetoric or the law of the drug war. And presumably, those are the folks whose behavior we want to change. But how can a society communicate with a group of people it has exiled from legitimate society? Arrest and prosecution is not a very good means of communicating.
Prohibition encourages abuse in those who do use drugs (if nothing else, by socially and legally exiling them), and does little else to affect their behavior. And that's not even mentioning the kids who do drugs just because they're not supposed to -- and there's plenty of them.
Potentially lethal: Not only does heroin use itself become much more lethal when it's illegal, due to impurities, uncontrolled doses, lack of information (where does one go to find the healthiest ways to consume heroin?), equipment and processing (needles, flames), and so on...but a whole new range of physical danger blossoms due to its black market status. Not just more danger for the user or seller -- though that's there too -- but more danger for you, and Jethro, and my mom, and the storekeeper and the wealthy and the random. Mugging, robbing, senseless shooting kind of danger, which would not exist but for the prohibition. (Obviously those types of crimes would still occur, but the contribution of the drug black market would be removed. It's no secret that illegal drugs fund gangs and fund terrorists and fund the mob. It's the gasoline in their engine.)
Heroin makes most people sedated and happy -- the opposite of violent. Aside from overdose -- which, in a legal market, would be no more common than any other overdoses (like alcohol or pills) -- there is no physical harm associated with heroin. Thanks to prohibition however, the mob and terrorists are associated with heroin, and will be for as long as it remains prohibited. We could apply the current fucked-up model as hard and as long as we want, and people will still be able to get heroin, in jail or out. The mob would love it if we would do just that.
Or do you want all illict drugs made legal?
That is in fact what I want. I think we would be amazed at how much healthier an approach we could have toward drugs -- and thus, how much less of an adverse effect they could have on our society -- if we legalized them. We're just living through Prohibition again, just that it's stretched out and more diffuse. The corruption, the violence, the overdoses, the speakeasies, the bootlegging, the buttering of the mob's bread -- it's all there this time too. Same as it was, and for the same reasons. Prohibition. Does. Not. Work.
Choosing not to use or abuse drugs is something most people do perfectly well simply by weighing the consequences and making a decision. If it was the law doing it, it would seem that a whole lot more people who smoke pot would also try heroin or coke. But they don't. Because they don't want to. And those are "dopers" deciding that!
What's your limit?
About two beers, and maybe a shot of Jagermeister. I never found a limit with pot, and I haven't done any other drugs in many years.
Pot's the easy one, and the most obvious, but legalizing it only solves part of the problem.
It might only solve part of the problem...but that part is the most glaring.
I have six children (two in college) and when they ask why pot is illegal and alcohol is not....I can say nothing of reason that would support law enforcements POV.
Now, I can and have given my children reasons why they shouldn’t do either marijuana or alcohol, but I really can’t make an argument for the government.
It’s time that the ridiculous and religious based laws concerning marijuana are repealed.
It might only solve part of the problem...but that part is the most glaring.
I would have to agree with that. IMO, one either has to advocate the prohibition of alcohol, or the legalization of pot. To do otherwise requires a major leap in logic. (Or, more plainly, it requires a contradiction in logic.)
And it would be hard to overstate what a sweeping realization it was for me when I smoked pot and realized how much less damaging and debilitating it was than alcohol. I've never lost more respect for my government in a single day than on that day. (Running a close second would be the first time I was arrested.)
Let me put it this way, crabs, if murder were legal you would be dead.* Now do you understand how illegal drugs reduce drug consumption?
* the above statement is not to be construed as a threat to anyone's life. The reason being such an act would be ILLEGAL!!!!! It is a statement written in an attempt to establish that certain activities are reduced due to their status as illegal.**
** the above comment was made for dumb s**** that failed reading comprehension.
you wrote "if murder were legal, you would be dead". that statement could be construed as a threat on his life. i didn't say it was one, nor did i say that it necessarily would be, just that it could be.
I did.
sorry you didn't like the answer.
if those Iraqi would just have followed Saddam's laws, they wouldn't have gotten tortured either...so what?
I mean, if they don't break the law, they don't go to jail? So what?
and I would guess that more than one black man has not broken the law and still went to jail anyway.
pathetic.
yes, it was a pathetic question
I mean, if they outlaw all food except bread and water and you only eat bread and water you won't go to jail...
that doesn't make it a good law.
You've been on here about 15 hours today crabs. Not much going on in your life is there.
Bread and water in prison...I like it!
Dance around the question all you want...pathetic.
this just tells me that you didn't read the article that told about how illegitimate the process actually was.
That tells me you don't know what a legitmate process is.
I mean, if they outlaw all food except bread and water and you only eat bread and water you won't go to jail...
that doesn't make it a good law.
If went through the legitimate democratic process I think it would.
I also did about 10 hours of work...I take it you aren't familiar with the term "multi-tasking"
okay, bodine things outlawing all food except bread and water would be a good law
how about if they make a law that ways all black people have to be shot on site?
good law as long as it's a law?
and THIS is your idea of legitimate democratic process?
without a recorded vote, after a baldface lie concerning testimony about something that the Speaker doesn't even know what it is
legitimate democratic process?
as if
You are laughable crabs. You use blacks in your examples and that's just fine. I use blacks in my examples and I'm racist...There is something wrong with you.
okay, bodine things outlawing all food except bread and water would be a good law I wouldn't like such a law. I would probably violate such a law. But hey if it was passed through a legitimate democratic process, which wouldn't happen, I would have to pay the consequences if caught.
how about if they make a law that ways all black people have to be shot on site? I don't know a society with a democratic form of government that would pass such a law.
...crabs. ...There is something wrong with you.
Yes indeed. May be it is a side effect of the drugs.
So former Governor Gary Johnson -- triathelete, doesn't do drugs or alcohol or even sugar -- is on a slow road to destruction? He smoked pot for years.
How about Cheech Marin? He did a LOT of drugs. Is he on a slow road to destruction, and do you have any recent evidence of that?
Dr. Lester Grinspoon at Harvard?
Michael Bloomberg? When's he going to get to his destination of destruction?
Stephen King? (Best-selling author ever, if I'm not mistaken.) Wesley Snipes?
Bill Gates?
Slow road to destruction?
When are these people going to get there? Just how slow is this road of yours?
what drugs would those be?
I don't take any drugs that have side effects...not even one that gives a hangover.
good law or bad law?
Lance/Crabby,
What if I gave in on pot.
Would that suffice you?
Or do you want all illict drugs made legal?
What's your limit?
if you treat the situation as a strictly medical one, certainly pot, which is the single safest drug in the history of the world, doesn't merit any concern at all. It's not going to kill anyone (as a matter of fact, it is virtually impossible to overdose on it...something that can't be said of asprin)
as for harder drugs...control it.
when you make them illegal, you lose the ability to control it.
I mean, I can go to the store right now and buy all kinds of substances that can kill me.
but I can't grow a plant that, no matter how much I take, cannot kill me?
So you would legalize meth, crack, heroine, PCP...?
treat them the same way we treat these drugs...
Adapin (Doxepin)
Alprazolam
Amantadine
Amitriptyline
Amoxapine
Anafranil (Clomipramine)
Antabuse (Disulfiram)
Artane (Trihexyphenidyl)
Asendin (Amoxapine)
Ativan (Lorazepam)
Aventyl (Nortriptyline)
Benadryl (Diphenhydramine)
Benztropine
Bupropion
Buspar (Buspirone)
Buspirone
Calan (Verapamil)
Calcium Carbimide
Carbamazepine
Carbolith (Lithium)
Celexa (Citalopram)
Chlordiazepoxide
Chlorpromazine
Cibalith-S (Lithium)
Citalopram
Clomipramine
Clonazepam
Clopixol (Zuclopenthixol)
Clozapine
Clozaril (Clozapine)
Cogentin (Benztropine)
Cylert (Pemoline)
Dalmane (Flurazepam)
Depakene (Valproate)
Depakote (Divalproex)
Desipramine
Desyrel (Trazodone)
Dexedrine (Dextroamphetamine)
Dextroamphetamine
Diazapam
Dilantin (Phenytoin)
Divalproex
Diphenhydramine
Disulfiram
Doxepin
Duralith (Lithium)
Edronax (Reboxetine)
Effexor (Venlafaxine)
Elavil (Amitriptyline)
Endep (Amitriptyline)
Epitol (Carbamazepine)
Epival (Divalproex)
Eskalith (Lithium)
Ethosuximide
Etrafon (Perphenazine)
Fluanxol (Flupenthixol)
Fluoxetine
Flupenthixol
Fluphenazine
Flurazepam
Fluvoxamine
Halcion (Triazolam)
Haldol (Haloperidol)
Haloperidol
Imipramine
Imovane (Zopiclone)
Inderal (Propranolol)
Isoptin (Verapamil)
Janimine (Imipramine)
Klonopin (Clonazepam)
Lamotrigine
Lamictal (Lamotrigine)
Largactil (Chlorpromazine)
Libritabs (Chlordiazepoxide)
Librium (Chlordiazepoxide)
Lithane (Lithium)
Lithium
Lithizine (Lithium)
Lithobid (Lithium)
Lithonate (Lithium)
Lithotabs (Lithium)
Lorazepam
Loxapac (Loxapine)
Loxapine
Loxitane (Loxapine)
Ludiomil (Maprotiline)
Luvox (Fluvoxamine)
Manerix (Moclobemide)
Maprotiline
Mellaril (Thioridazine)
Mesoridazine
Methylphenidate
Moclobemide
Modecate (Fluphenazine)
Mysoline (Primidone)
Nardil (Phenelzine)
Navane
Nefazodone
Norpramine (Desipramine)
Nortriptyline
Nozinan
Olanzapine
Orap
Oxazepam
Pamelor (Nortriptyline)
Parnate (Tranylcypromine)
Paroxetine
Paxil (Paroxetine)
Pemoline
Permitil (Fluphenazine)
Perphenazine
Pertofrane (Desipramine)
Phenelzine
Piportil (Pipotiazine)
Pipotiazine
Primidone
Prolixin (Fluphenazine)
Propranolol
Protriptyline
Prozac (Fluoxetine)
Quetiapine
Reboxetine (Edronax)
Restoril (Temazepam)
Rhotrimine (Trimipramine)
Risperidal (Risperidone)
Risperidone
Ritalin (Methylphenidate)
Rivotril (Clonazepam)
Sabril (Vigabatrin)
Serax (Oxazepam)
Serentil (Mesoridazine)
Seroquel (Quetiapine)
Sertraline
Serzone (Nefazodone)
Sinequan (Doxepin)
Stelazine (Trifluoperazine)
Sulpiride
Surmontil (Trimipramine)
Symmetrel (Amantadine)
T-Quil (Diazapam)
Tegretol (Carbamazepine)
Temazepam
Temposil (Calcium Carbimide)
Thioridazine
Thiothixene
Thorazine (Chlorpromazine)
Tofranil (Imipramine)
Trazodone
Triazolam
Trifluoperazine
Trihexyphenidyl
Trilafon (Perphenazine)
Trimipramine
Triptil (Protriptyline)
Valium (Diazapam)
Valium Injection (Diazapam)
Valproate
Valproic acid
Valrelease (Valproate)
Venlafaxine
Verapamil
Vivactil (Protriptyline)
Vigabatrin (Sabril)
Wellbutrin (Bupropion)
Xanax (Alprazolam)
Zarontin (Ethosuximide)
Zoloft (Sertraline)
Zopiclone
Zuclopenthixol
Clopixol (Zuclopenthixol)
Zyprexa (Olanzapine)
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, Sorry to disappoint AND remind you once AGAIN fold, I am NOT white.
Please try to remember that in the future.
are you black?
I am pointing out the racism and you are ignoring it
I'm glad you are pointing out your racism.
if you think that saying a law is racist as applied is being racist, I can' help you.
I'm not the one saying that the racists laws are good
If you think it's okay that we lock up blacks a lot more than whites for the same crime then you are saying that racist law is okay.
I don't think it's okay
and i don't need your help.
so, do you support laws that are applied in a racist manner?
Well, let's say I'd appreciate your willingness to compromise...but no. (Though I'll take any positive change in the law I can get...I realize it's not likely to all tumble at once.)
Pot's the easy one, and the most obvious, but legalizing it only solves part of the problem. The biggest part, in terms of numbers, for sure, but not the biggest part, in terms of damage-per-unit. The criminalization of drugs and drug use makes those things more dangerous. More dangerous for those who use them, more dangerous for those who traffic in them, and more dangerous for everyone else. Prohibition is a flawed solution no matter what consensual crime is involved -- the sentence above could be applied equally as well to gambling, prostitution, and assisted suicide. And while making our least dangerous illegal drug less dangerous would be great, it doesn't really make sense to continue on making our most dangerous drugs more dangerous.
Take heroin for example. By itself, it's harmful (though that depends on who you ask), it's addictive, and it's potentially lethal.
Then make it illegal.
Harmful: The harm caused by heroin skyrockets, due to impurities, unknown potency and dosage, use of (bootleg) unsterile processing and consumption equipment, and inavailability of medical care (due to fear of arrest). Heroin is basically infinitely more dangerous when illegal.
Addictive: The drug war distorts the dialogue around drugs so much that people can hardly be said to have been given a clear picture of what drug use entails. Most of the message comes from the government/schools, and they are notoriously poor at conveying clear information about drug use. D.A.R.E. (basically, a health class taught by police officers) has been shown to have no measurable effect on the likelihood of its "students" to do drugs. The Drugs Fund Terrorism ads are being yanked because they didn't work. For a long time, "Just Say No" and the frying pan analogy, along with D.A.R.E., comprised the bulk of our preventative counsel toward youth.
Which is to say that the drug war impedes rational and open discourse about drugs and their effects. Personally, once I tried pot, and I realized how twisted all the drug rhetoric I had been fed was, I was inclined to discard all that I had "learned" about drugs from my fearless leaders. For that matter, once I made the decision to take alcohol while underage, I had already made the decision to overrule the both the guidance and the law that had been handed down to me from above, relying instead upon the guidance of my friends and myself. From that point on, the official societal attitude toward drugs was effectively irrelevant to my own attitude toward them. I didn't decide not to do heroin or cocaine because of the law, or because of anything I had been taught in school or on TV. I chose not to do them after seeking information from sources that didn't have an ulterior agenda -- and after having enough knowledge from my own experience to make relative judgments about drugs. Based on the same premise, I didn't consult the ONDCP when considering whether to take mushrooms or LSD.
Yes, the drug war probably scares some people away from ever even trying drugs, either for fear of breaking the law or because they were sold on drugs being a bad idea. But it doesn't achieve that effect with millions of others -- tens of millions who disregard fear of breaking the law, and the "drugs are bad" theory, and smoke pot anyway, and millions more who take further steps over that line. Those folks -- millions of people -- are by and large untouched by either the rhetoric or the law of the drug war. And presumably, those are the folks whose behavior we want to change. But how can a society communicate with a group of people it has exiled from legitimate society? Arrest and prosecution is not a very good means of communicating.
Prohibition encourages abuse in those who do use drugs (if nothing else, by socially and legally exiling them), and does little else to affect their behavior. And that's not even mentioning the kids who do drugs just because they're not supposed to -- and there's plenty of them.
Potentially lethal: Not only does heroin use itself become much more lethal when it's illegal, due to impurities, uncontrolled doses, lack of information (where does one go to find the healthiest ways to consume heroin?), equipment and processing (needles, flames), and so on...but a whole new range of physical danger blossoms due to its black market status. Not just more danger for the user or seller -- though that's there too -- but more danger for you, and Jethro, and my mom, and the storekeeper and the wealthy and the random. Mugging, robbing, senseless shooting kind of danger, which would not exist but for the prohibition. (Obviously those types of crimes would still occur, but the contribution of the drug black market would be removed. It's no secret that illegal drugs fund gangs and fund terrorists and fund the mob. It's the gasoline in their engine.)
Heroin makes most people sedated and happy -- the opposite of violent. Aside from overdose -- which, in a legal market, would be no more common than any other overdoses (like alcohol or pills) -- there is no physical harm associated with heroin. Thanks to prohibition however, the mob and terrorists are associated with heroin, and will be for as long as it remains prohibited. We could apply the current fucked-up model as hard and as long as we want, and people will still be able to get heroin, in jail or out. The mob would love it if we would do just that.
That is in fact what I want. I think we would be amazed at how much healthier an approach we could have toward drugs -- and thus, how much less of an adverse effect they could have on our society -- if we legalized them. We're just living through Prohibition again, just that it's stretched out and more diffuse. The corruption, the violence, the overdoses, the speakeasies, the bootlegging, the buttering of the mob's bread -- it's all there this time too. Same as it was, and for the same reasons. Prohibition. Does. Not. Work.
Choosing not to use or abuse drugs is something most people do perfectly well simply by weighing the consequences and making a decision. If it was the law doing it, it would seem that a whole lot more people who smoke pot would also try heroin or coke. But they don't. Because they don't want to. And those are "dopers" deciding that!
About two beers, and maybe a shot of Jagermeister. I never found a limit with pot, and I haven't done any other drugs in many years.
Lance Brown 4/20/03 10:42pm
Pot's the easy one, and the most obvious, but legalizing it only solves part of the problem.
It might only solve part of the problem...but that part is the most glaring.
I have six children (two in college) and when they ask why pot is illegal and alcohol is not....I can say nothing of reason that would support law enforcements POV.
Now, I can and have given my children reasons why they shouldn’t do either marijuana or alcohol, but I really can’t make an argument for the government.
It’s time that the ridiculous and religious based laws concerning marijuana are repealed.
I would have to agree with that. IMO, one either has to advocate the prohibition of alcohol, or the legalization of pot. To do otherwise requires a major leap in logic. (Or, more plainly, it requires a contradiction in logic.)
And it would be hard to overstate what a sweeping realization it was for me when I smoked pot and realized how much less damaging and debilitating it was than alcohol. I've never lost more respect for my government in a single day than on that day. (Running a close second would be the first time I was arrested.)
Thanks Jethro. For all you have added to this discussion. It has been very illustrative.
Well you know what you can do with it.
George Bush, famous for his past excess in drinking a drug, is on a slow road to destruction?
Yes and he turned off of the road to destruction. What road are you on? Not that I give a damn.
I am pointing out the racism and you are ignoring it
You are pointing out how twisted your kind is, that's all.
It’s time that the ridiculous and religious based laws concerning marijuana are repealed.
I do not see that the drug laws have anything to do with religion.
I don't think I could go along with legalizing Meth, Crack, Heroine...
I just don't see how society would benefit from legalizing such hardcore drugs.
remember, crack only exists because of the drug laws
I just don't see how society benefits from having them illegal
I just don't see how society benefits from having them illegal
Because you won't open your eyes. Probably due to the drug induced stupor.
go ahead and explain how...because all the facts show that it makes things worse, not better
because all the facts show that it makes things worse, not better
I have explained how. You refuse to consider it. It is because you have an agenda and anything that contradicts it you will reject it out of hand.
no you haven't
trot out some facts
your opinion alone is uninformed.
Let me put it this way, crabs, if murder were legal you would be dead.* Now do you understand how illegal drugs reduce drug consumption?
* the above statement is not to be construed as a threat to anyone's life. The reason being such an act would be ILLEGAL!!!!! It is a statement written in an attempt to establish that certain activities are reduced due to their status as illegal.**
** the above comment was made for dumb s**** that failed reading comprehension.
you realise, jethro, that your statement could be construed as a threat on crabby's life, right?
you realise, jethro, that your statement could be construed as a threat on crabby's life, right?
No. You must be dumber than I thought. Read it again. Here let me help you: Let me put it this way, crabs, if murder was legal you would be dead.
you wrote "if murder were legal, you would be dead". that statement could be construed as a threat on his life. i didn't say it was one, nor did i say that it necessarily would be, just that it could be.
that statement could be construed as a threat on his life.
Is murder likely to be legal in this country any time soon?
afraid someone's gonna wash your mouth out with soap if you say "shit", or wash your hands off if you type it?
i'm sure there are plenty of lawyers out there who could take that and run with it, jethro. being one yourself, you probably know a few who would.
i'm sure there are plenty of lawyers out there who could take that and run with it, jethro. being one yourself, you probably know a few who would.
There are lawyers that will do anything if the price is right.
and i'm sure some of them would actually win that case too.