The War on College Students by SergeantX

Working to better the system from within is always desirable. But a lot of loud voices are always needed to alert everyone to the cause!

Scream with me:

WE'RE MAD AS HELL, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!

Uh...I don't think they heard us....

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:21 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
How many civies & soldiers died in Iraq that never would have because BushCo ran with erroneous or slanted intel...and who's making $1000 per day per merc on the deal? The criminal mentality starts at the top, my friend.

Hey, quit stealing Rue and Signy's schtick.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
How many civies & soldiers died in Iraq that never would have because BushCo ran with erroneous or slanted intel...and who's making $1000 per day per merc on the deal? The criminal mentality starts at the top, my friend.

Hey, quit stealing Rue and Signy's schtick.

Sorry, I'll go back to my "Bush is actually Damian from Omen III" thing...

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Which one Finn?

Here's the War on Drugs...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3025396475247394113

And here's second hand smoke

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sitesearch=&q=Penn+and+Teller+seco
nd+hand+smoke

I don’t know - which ever one Serg is throwing a fit over. I guess the ‘war on drugs’ one.

Although a sensational op-ed piece by Penn and Teller hardly qualifies as evidence. Still I like Penn and Teller.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Working to better the system from within is always desirable. But a lot of loud voices are always needed to alert everyone to the cause!

The cause of what? Allowing drugs on colleges campuses? Am I the only one who realizes there’s no leg to stand on in this arguments?

No wonder libertarians never get anywhere in the political process.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The cause of what? Allowing drugs on colleges campuses?

The cause of getting laws to make us all safer, not more at risk...violent offenders need longer jail time, non-violent, compliant ones none at all- just MAD community service (Hey! Free street cleaning & soup kitchen workers

!!!)

Paint my courts you drug-dealin' bipedisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The cause of what? Allowing drugs on colleges campuses?

The cause of getting laws to make us all safer, not more at risk...violent offenders need longer jail time, non-violent, compliant ones none at all- just MAD community service (Hey! Free street cleaning & soup kitchen workers!!!)

I consider getting rid of drug dealers on campus part of that story. No leg.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:25 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
6IXSTRINGJACK Wrote:

Take that line of questioning one step further and ask yourself, why am I even buying these nickel bags from thugs and cop-killers when I could just grow it in my back yard right next to the tomatoes?

I think it used to be required by law in some seafaring areas. But they needed it for rope.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Truth is, most of the profits all around got smoke up at parties between friends and the girls that came around.

Then you were not doing it right.
Quote:

They apparently made little effort to launder their spoils. One fraternity brother arrested Tuesday drove his Lexus directly from a $400 cocaine sale on campus to a nearby bank, where he deposited the cash, according to court papers.

Here's the article. It described how easy it was for the cops..."all they needed was cash".

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080508/D90H8NQG0.html

When I was in college I never drove my Lexus to the bank. My buddy had a 20 year old Plymouth Valarie with a busten grill...

H

Seems to me that they were the ones not doing it right Hero.

I got a squeaky clean record, I've put all that stuff way behind me, and I have a whole lot of great memories with my old friends and the many women who were attracted to our party scene like moths to the flame.

No.... I think we did it exactly right.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
No.... I think we did it exactly right.

no, no, no... you failed to confirm Hero's simplistic, preconceived stereotypes. That's the very definition of 'wrong'!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:54 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m a libertarian on drugs as well, but why does that have to mean I have to accept drug dealers without restriction? Since when does legalization of drugs mean drugs are allowed on campuses? Or allowed to be sold by armed street dealers? Just because drugs are legal won’t make them good. And this is really the biggest problem with the legalization issue.

Legalisation of Alcohol after prohibition more or less pushed the Mafia out of the market. It's pretty likely that legalising at least some drugs will do the same thing.

Quote:
Legalization proponents want to legalize drugs, but they want to ignore the danger of these drugs. I’m a proponent of legalization, but in my mind, the legalization argument cannot be decoupled from the regulation argument.

I see no evidence for that assertion, where ever I see legalisation arguments, I nearly always see caveats about how drugs can then be 'regulated'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m a libertarian on drugs as well, but why does that have to mean I have to accept drug dealers without restriction? Since when does legalization of drugs mean drugs are allowed on campuses? Or allowed to be sold by armed street dealers? Just because drugs are legal won’t make them good. And this is really the biggest problem with the legalization issue.
Legalisation of Alcohol after prohibition more or less pushed the Mafia out of the market. It's pretty likely that legalising at least some drugs will do the same thing.

So you’re solution to drug dealing on college campuses is to legalize drugs. There it is. The legalization argument being used to avoid the regulation issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 12:01 AM

And there it is.... the regulation argument being used to avoid the legalization issue.

I'm getting dizzy.....

I can't believe that I'm even doing this, but I gotta come in here and try to clarify Citizen's position because he and I actually agree on something for once.... I think.

Citizen Said:

Quote:
Legalisation of Alcohol after prohibition more or less pushed the Mafia out of the market. It's pretty likely that legalising at least some drugs will do the same thing.

Finn Said:

Quote:
So you’re solution to drug dealing on college campuses is to legalize drugs. There it is. The legalization argument being used to avoid the regulation issue.

He didn't even propose a solution here, so I don't really even have a clue as to where that came from. He merely made an intelligent statement comparing the lift of the constitutionally ammended ban on alcohol resulting in the virtual elimination of a major crime element in America overnight to what is potentially a very similar situation we face today. Where you took that from there is wherever your own biases and predispositions wanted to go with it, I suppose.

Now, what I'm adding personally is that the only reason the drug problem has gotten so bad in this country and all of the schemers, "bad guys", felons, etc. are prospering in this country today is because the outright ban on these products has for decades propped up an ever expanding market in which they all thrive. Without the distributors, it is somewhere between hard and impossible for normal folk who want it to get it, short of risking their own property and freedom growing their own, so the price goes up.... And when the price goes up the aformentioned bad guys are willing to take greater risks to bring the product to those willing to pay the asking price. Risks including, but certainly not limited to manufacturing the goods, transporting the goods, housing the goods, distributing the goods, getting busted with the goods, getting busted distributing the goods, 3 strikes your out, bullet to the head by rival gang members, bullet to the head by police, bullet to the head by feinin' junkie, etc. etc. etc.....

Now legalize pot. Take away the incentives, and make it more readily available to people, say... over the age of 18, and right there you've eliminated I'd guesstimate somewhere in the area of 70-90% of the black market for the drug within weeks. Sure, there are always going to be those who are trying to buy outside the legal guidelines, like those who are underage, or those willing to buy a possibly tainted product to get a better price, but eventually the bad guys say "What's making this worth my while, why am I risking my life for peanuts?"

Regulations on the drug are another issue altogether and a valid one at that. Personally, I'd rather be surrounded by an entire city full of potheads than the one I live in where I don't know who's on prozac or ritalin, or anti-depressants/anti-psychotics, etc., but I understand that there are many who do not share this opinion. While there is still fear of pot and it's effects because of the decades upon decades of wonderful propoganda campaigns against it (originally funded by William Randolph Hearst and likely funded by Pfizer, the US gov, and the drug cartels in South America today), I'm sure a compromise can be met and there can be reasonable regulations regarding its use.

I just don't see how an intelligent people in this country on either side of the issue haven't been able to come together and make reasonable compromises which would all but eliminate the major source of crime in this country today. Though I'll be the first to admit that pot can be abused, who could argue that the same can be said about cigarettes, booze and pills made in every color of the rainbow every day. That, in my mind, is no reason to ban the substance which for decades has propped up organized crime, currently funds terrorism against our country and all over the world, and has cost theUS taxpayers billions of dollars every year funding the "War" on drugs..... a debt that sadly we will never repay and will pass along to our children and our children's children.

Don't you find it funny how you don't hear the term "War" on drugs much when there is an actual REAL war going on?

D.A.R.E. to know the truth.

Disclaimer: I partake, and although this is probably the one board I've associated myself with that continually has thought provoking content and an overall much higher percentage of the correct usage of English than any board I've ever seen before, I think I keep up pretty well. From personal experience, I can say that I'm still pretty damn sharp and I've never gone psychotic and mamed anyone as of 05:48 Central this morning, as "Reefer Madness" would have you believe I would have, probalby many times over by now.

If we were able to grow it next to the tomatoes, what a dream come true for people of my way of thinking. No money funding organized crime stateside, no money funding drug cartels in South America/Mexico, no money funding terrorism worldwide, 90% reduction in the amount of American taxpayer dollars go to funding feeding and housing millions of "criminals" every year for minor non-violent drug offences, 90% reduction in the money we flush down the toilet in the unwinnable "war" on drugs, and no tax dollars being made on our end that I would feel guilty about going to fund our worldwide imperialism at the same time.

Everybody wins! Well...... except for the South American/Mexican drug cartels.... terrorists... the gangs distributing the drugs stateside... and the 10s of thousands of American Government law enforcement employees who will be laid off when there is no reason to justify paying their salary anymore... and the defence attorneys who will have to downsize their houses and cars and wives/girlfriends/mistresses.... and the rabid anti-drug zealots..... Nope.... can't say there's anybody I care none to much for that would be suffering in that deal.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
He didn't even propose a solution here, so I don't really even have a clue as to where that came from. He merely made an intelligent statement comparing the lift of the constitutionally ammended ban on alcohol resulting in the virtual elimination of a major crime element in America overnight to what is potentially a very similar situation we face today. Where you took that from there is wherever your own biases and predispositions wanted to go with it, I suppose.

The solution was the legalization. By legalizing drugs the use is no longer a crime, but this does not address the issue in the article about drugs on campuses or my issue. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Perhaps you believe drugs should be permitted on College Campuses or sold to High School students, but I do not. Regulation is still required. In other words, by legalizing drugs, you DO NOT get rid of the crime. In fact, legalization will only make it worse. When drugs can be purchased at the corner package store, the effort to keep them out of the hands of children and off college campuses will become an even larger one then it is today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:09 AM

Like that argument holds any water when so many kids in school these days are on speed (ritalin), SSRIs (prozac) and Clonidine to counter the nasty side effects of the first two, and off-label with no proper research of effects on their age group and longterm effects in general.

Not all the dope dealers in this world hang out on street corners, many hide behind a lab coat and were you to ask me, the difference between them isn't very damn much.

A lot of these kids might be BETTER served by smokin a phattie than the dangerous and untested cocktail mixes they're being fed by Big Pharma.

Which, of course, doesn't like street level dealers themselves because of the competition, and that's a fact, they're just another, albeit official, mafia cartel when it comes to that aspect.

I find it ironic nobody mentioned that aspect, but really what better way to sink your competition than have it outlawed, yes ?

If we ever do legalise, the dumbest and most self-destructive thing we could ever do is let the supply chain wind up in the hands of Big Pharma, it would be a dire mistake and cost us dearly, so be aware of that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not all the dope dealers in this world hang out on street corners, many hide behind a lab coat and were you to ask me, the difference between them isn't very damn much.

Yes, well, I’m not sure I would call them dope dealers, but it is true that prescription narcotics are among the most heavily abused drugs. This only serves to make my point even more water tight. Even when we try to control these kinds of drugs, we can’t. It’s one thing to say that an adult has the right to fry his brain and destroy his life for a fix, it’s another thing entirely to create a atmosphere in which college kids and children are exposed to these kinds of drugs without protection. One thing is certain, no legalization argument that has any interest in protecting children and our colleges could possibly argue that legalization will eliminate the crime - in fact, from this point of view it is likely to make it worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:36 AM

I know Frem had something to say too, and I'm going to read this right after I respond to you, but I just had to say something to you right now Finn.

Did you read my entire post, or did you just skim and see a lot of stuff that you don't like and respond to that?

I agree with you that there should be regulation. I agree with a lot of the laws out there, although I don't appreciate them coming from a Federal level most of the time. I don't want 16 year olds with licenses getting drunk and slamming into buildings and houses and people. I'm not an idiot and I'm not proposing armegeddon to you here.

Ya know... I'm not going to explain my position again here. I did it in there already. It might be in the middle of a whole lot of stuff you don't want to read, but it's there. I think we're far more closer on this issue than apart and if you'd get past the mindless instinct to defend your position at all costs, maybe you'd see just how much common ground we have.

I'm not proposing an overnight solution here. Concessions need to be made here so your 12 year old daughter can't get a hold of the stuff when you're not around 24/7 to watch her, but at the same time I think that some 17 year old kid ignorant enough to get caught with a 30 sack and then cop a plea because he can't afford a lawyer smart enough to tell him not to that shouldn't be barred from getting a decent college education or acquiring a livable wage in their future. I'm not talking about hand-outs. I'm talking about the kids that really deserve it and worked hard for it and either they were just experimental a few times and really had bad luck and got busted or they are full time smokers by `20 and still get the good grades.

I belive there should be some restraints here. Look around you.... as pissed off about it as I am, they've managed to corall the smokers so much that we're no more than bovine that can cause you cancer if you stand to close and let us fart our poisonous nicotene methane clouds in your general direction. That isn't hard to do with pot. In fact, given the tendanceies of your sterotypical pot-head, it would likely make their job easier and now that I think of it, I should probably be on the other side of this argument just for the sake of that fact.

I'll just say, as a continuation of one of my other posts on a thread a few weeks ago, I believe that you and I agree on about 70 to 80% of this issue.... there are just things in the middle which need to be compromised on from both sides.

Certainly proposing that pot should be legalized, with regulation like any other drug, can't be any worse than big Pharm being allowed by the government to push their drugs to the masses all day and all night long during commercial breaks.... can it?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
violent offenders need longer jail time, non-violent, compliant ones none at all- just MAD community service

Thats racist (or elitist).

Guy pulls a gun and takes your wallet you want in jail. Guy defrauds old folks of life savings you want out on community service.

Guy breaks into a house you want in jail. Guy steals you ID cleanig out accounts and ruining credit you want out on community service.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I find it ironic nobody mentioned that aspect, but really what better way to sink your competition than have it outlawed, yes ?

Oh.... come on now Frem.... you know I mentioned it.

While there is still fear of pot and it's effects because of the decades upon decades of wonderful propoganda campaigns against it (originally funded by William Randolph Hearst and likely funded by Pfizer, the US gov, and the drug cartels in South America today), I'm sure a compromise can be met and there can be reasonable regulations regarding its use.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 4:53 AM

And Frack if MotherFrackin' Hero doesn't make some sense here..... (I'm trying to be "PC" for the soccer moms in here today).

Stop messing with my head with that Black/White shit lawyer.

That's elitist though man. Not racist. I never go the feeling that Chrisisall has a sliver of racism in him. I say a lot of stuff that folk with delicate sensibilities might infer as racist, but that's never my intention, as most of my points are proven fact and decent people of minority persuasions tend to agree with me about them. And don't turn that into a racist comment, lawyer, because I know by the year 2020 or something I'm going to be a minority myself. It's just a fact.

Chrisisall though...... never even seen him on the radar for saying anything that could even remotely be construed as a racist comment in RWED.

You know better than that Hero, and I think that's why you used the "()" there..... You try throwing a net like that on me and it will have a better chance of sticking, but you know I'm gonna do my damnedest to shake that bitch off....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 5:09 AM

Just exactly how would legalisation make the 'crime' worse when it would no longer be a crime ?

And as for protection, that's not exactly a sustainable argument, because Gov "protection" is more often than not worse than anything it could conceivably be protecting you FROM, and let's face it, if with all of the jackboot lockdown you still got that kind of availability on campus, it sure as hell ain't gonna change.

The best protection comes from good parenting and teaching good sense, independant thought, and responsible use to your kids, it's just that simple.

I mean, seriously, if your kid was gonna smoke up a phattie, wouldn't you rather it be in your own backyard with a bag of chips, some tunes and a brew, under your supervision ?

You'd get a chance to chill with your own kid and connect with them in a way most parents never do, while maintaining a protective supervision so they do not endanger themselves or others.

Compare that to smoking weed of dubious quality in the back room of a freakin crack house where anything could happen.

I've had to "rescue" a friends kid from such a place once after someone spiked whatever she was drinking, and she had the good sense to *immediately* call the one person she trusted most in the world while she was still cogent enough to do so - where that might have gone otherwise is a matter I am glad we never did find out.*

There's just no replacement for teaching a kid responsible and sensible conduct, no matter how you try.

-F
*Kid learned her lesson from that one, and very thankfully not in any kind of hard way.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Did you read my entire post, or did you just skim and see a lot of stuff that you don't like and respond to that?

I read you’re whole post. I just responded to the issue you had with what I said. I didn’t get into the superfluous content, because in a lot of cases I don’t disagree. In others case I didn’t want to get into it, such as the pothead vs. Ritalin/anti-depressant issue - I’m pretty sure the potheads are a lot worse, but I guess it depends on the type of company one prefers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Just exactly how would legalisation make the 'crime' worse when it would no longer be a crime ?

That’s how, right there. Something is legalized and suddenly it’s okay. This is the problem I have with the whole legalization argument. Even if it were legal I still would want it to be a crime for it be on college campuses or in the hands of children. I don’t really understand why this is so hard to understand. It really don't seem like I'm asking a lot here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I mean, seriously, if your kid was gonna smoke up a phattie, wouldn't you rather it be in your own backyard with a bag of chips, some tunes and a brew, under your supervision ?

I want my girls to be safe, and the first line of defense is to keep that shit away from them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
There's just no replacement for teaching a kid responsible and sensible conduct, no matter how you try.

We agree on that, but teaching my kid to smoke a phattie does not strike me as responsible or sensible conduct.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh how I long for the days when the WH didn't brutalize every science - from whether or not to regulate perchlorate in drinking water to the connection (there isn't any) between ETP and breast cancer. It all started when Bush said the NAS would decide on arsenic in drinking water based on 'sound science' - and sound science bit Bush's political ass. Ever since then science has been perverted, subverted, and stymied in every way possible.

So take this how you will -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_he_me/teens_drugs;_ylt=AihE3
DVgiuZv3Zil_v_ruCas0NUE

Feds: Teen use of pot can lead to dependency, mental illness
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 9, 7:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Depression, teens and marijuana are a dangerous mix that can lead to dependency, mental illness or suicidal thoughts, according to a White House report being released Friday.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
violent offenders need longer jail time, non-violent, compliant ones none at all- just MAD community service

Thats racist (or elitist).

Well...I AM quite bipedophobic...

Quote:

Guy pulls a gun and takes your wallet you want in jail. Guy defrauds old folks of life savings you want out on community service.

Guy breaks into a house you want in jail. Guy steals you ID cleanig out accounts and ruining credit you want out on community service.

Let me get specific...attacking someone's personal assets ENDANGERS their well-being, therefore it is a kind of violence, whereas shoplifting a 50 dollar item from a Walmart, while all kinds of wrong, directly endangers no one.
But thanks for giving me the chance to clarify it.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:11 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you’re solution to drug dealing on college campuses is to legalize drugs. There it is. The legalization argument being used to avoid the regulation issue.

Not really, but if all you are going to answer me with is strawmen...

I made no reference to a solution, I made a statement that if we were to legalise drugs criminal interests would fall by the way side. This works both in historical precedent and common sense. I made no reference to an actual solution, just an expected effect of said solution. Legalising drugs, would in fact include some form of regulation, and comparing it to the end of prohibition likewise indicates regulation, since that's what happened to Alcohol. I have no idea where you got a proposed solution from, I can only assume you either made it up, or your English language skills are somewhat lower than those of a native speaker.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-drugbust7-2008may
07,0,1445478.story

Protecting us from dangerous criminals.

SergeantX

After reading how these guys were operating, I'd suggest "Protecting us from stupid drug dealers" would be a more accurate discription. Maybe you should just consider it a Darwinian action which will improve the drug dealer (and college student) gene pool. Hey, a Twofer!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:41 AM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I still believe 'soft' drugs should be illegal for those under 21 - too much brain development going on before then. Which of course would make them highly attractive to young folk. Well, I guess you can't have everything.

As for drugs in general, I think they should be legal, but you get a prescription for them and you buy them - cheaply - through the universal health-care system.

The more profit and glamour you remove from the equation, the less interest anyone has in not just selling, but actively promoting drug use. People will see drug abuse for what it is - a debilitating, humiliating loss of personhood.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
After reading how these guys were operating, I'd suggest "Protecting us from stupid drug dealers" would be a more accurate discription.

I'll grant you that one. Kinda disproves the bit about pot makin' you paranoid. These guys certainly weren't looking over their shoulders.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Just exactly how would legalisation make the 'crime' worse when it would no longer be a crime ?
That’s how, right there. Something is legalized and suddenly it’s okay. This is the problem I have with the whole legalization argument.

Finn, I really shouldn't bother with your idiocy, but hey, I'm bored.

You don't seem to have the ability to make the distinction between good/bad and legal/illegal. Sometimes those overlap. Sometimes they don't. Some things that are legal are still bad, and some things that are illegal aren't necessarily 'bad'. That inconvenient nature of society doesn't fit your simplistic, black and white view of the world but that's your problem. Merely insisting that everyone else signs up with your stilted view isn't a compelling argument.

There are lots of things that are legal that I wouldn't do, and wouldn't want to see people do. But they're legal because you really can't control people the way you would like to. Trying to do that often does more harm than good. They're also legal because we, as a nation value freedom. Part of that is letting people decide for themselves what's good for them and what isn't, as long is it doesn't harm others. That's what we're talking about here. I know that won't fit in your head, but at least try to think about it.

Also, it's been said several times here by the legalization advocates, but your reading skills seem wanting, so I'll capitalize it, and, what the hell, underline it. NO ONE IS SAYING IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO GIVE DRUGS TO KIDS. So, you can put that strawman away, mkay?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Also, it's been said several times here by the legalization advocates, but your reading skills seem wanting, so I'll capitalize it, and, what the hell, underline it. NO ONE IS SAYING IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO GIVE DRUGS TO KIDS. So, you can put that strawman away, mkay?

That’s no straw man. You were the one who used as your example drugs on a college campus, mkay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You were the one who used as your example drugs on a college campus, mkay."

You watch South Park ? (I probably would have spelled it 'm'kay ?' .)

While brain physiology, biochemistry and other studies put the end of teenage brain remodeling at around 21-22 (with females earlier and males later, in general), we are stuck with a society that places the end of childhood at the end of high school for most things. Maybe that needs to be revisited.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 10:34 AM

The negative effects of drugs on the user don't enter into it. Recreational drugs have all kinds of bad effects on people of all ages. The issues is establishing an age where people are mature enough to accept responsibility for their own decisions. Eighteen years works ok, though using age as a guage for maturity is rather arbitrary.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 11:20 AM

Quote:
NO ONE IS SAYING IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO GIVE DRUGS TO KIDS.

Just curious, that include Ritalin, Clonidine, Haldol, and Prozac ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
NO ONE IS SAYING IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO GIVE DRUGS TO KIDS.

Just curious, that include Ritalin, Clonidine, Haldol, and Prozac ?

-F

While I'm basically OK with they idea of setting up a list of 'recreational' drugs that would be illegal to give to kids, my real prediliction is that it ought to be up to their parents. But to say so would set rue and signy's ears on fire.

I've been thinking, for the past hour or so, about what would be a good way to establish a person's legal 'adulthood'. Age is a pretty week criterium. Our culture really lacks any kind of recognized 'coming of age' ritual and I think it would be valuable, both from the symoblic and legal standpoint.

How about some kind citizenship test? Some kind of comprehensive set of criteria to establish a person's ability to act independently? And I'm decidedly NOT talking about a test to make sure they conform to society's demands - just something that would establish that they have a decent understanding that actions have consequences and that they'll be expected to deal with them.

That idea might sound like it goes against my libertarian grain, but I kind of like the idea, with the stipulation that once a person is so established, we leave them the hell alone and drop all the nanny state bullshit.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 12:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Our culture really lacks any kind of recognized 'coming of age' ritual and I think it would be valuable, both from the symoblic and legal standpoint."

EEG with power analysis ? (Determining which frequencies and how strong over regions of the brain.) That correlates very will with brain remodeling and the beginnings of adult judgement, appreciation of consequences and ability to project into the future.

There's a reason why teens have more car accidents, drunk driving, major credit card debt, stupid accidents (I just jumped into that pool - it never occurred to me it might be empty), STDs and unintended pregnancies, impulsive suicides, and so on.

***************************************************************
BTW - it's not that 'kids' all of the sudden become 'adults'. If you look at the animal kingdom, many animals have a long practice period on their way to being full-fledged, independent adults. Likewise there should be some graduated scheme on the way to full adulthood. IMHO anyway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Something is legalized and suddenly it’s okay. This is the problem I have with the whole legalization argument. Even if it were legal I still would want it to be a crime for it be on college campuses or in the hands of children. I don’t really understand why this is so hard to understand. It really don't seem like I'm asking a lot here.

Buying, selling and smoking cigarettes are still legal in this country, but you ask a majority in here you're going to find that most folk don't think it's okay. Just because something is legalized doesn't mean that overnight you're going to be the only person in the world with sense enough to know that it isn't good for you.

You know I have a ton of problems with the pills that Big Pharma pushes and tells people in TV and magazine ads to suggest to their doctor... ya know... the guy/gal that went to college for 7-10 years and should be the one suggesting what would work to you, but the pills and the practice of getting people to tell their doctor what pills they want are legal. I just have enough sense to stay the hell away from them, and any little rugrats I ever raise aren't going on 'em unless they choose to put themselves on them when they're old enough to make their own decisions and not living in my house anymore. Here's hoping that I raise 'em right and they don't ever want them.

Quote:
I want my girls to be safe, and the first line of defense is to keep that shit away from them.

I'm not going to argue the dangers of pot with you because it's obvious that this is one issue we are WAAAAAY off the map about, so I'll just say that I do understand that this is something that you want to keep away from your children. I also assume that booze, cigarettes and underage sex are things you don't want your children being around either when they get older. But as much as you'd like to monitor them 24/7 and make sure they always make the right decision, kids are going to be kids and you're going to have to just do your damndest to be a part of their lives and teach them your values and opinions of things and make sure they grow up with a healthy level of self-esteem and the willpower to say no to the temptations out there.

The truth is, legal or not, this stuff is very easy to get a hold of. It is easier to get now, in fact, than it was when the "War" on drugs started. Whether your daughters buy it from the 7-11 or the shady guy on that run-down block that would give you nightmares even knowing she was driving down, if your daughters are going to smoke it, your daughters are going to acquire it. We could spend 3 trillion a year to try to eliminate drugs in this country, and watch the national debt really spiral out of control, and that still isn't going to change the fact that if your daughters want to smoke it, they are going to acquire it. This is on you, my man. Do right... teach them and earn their respect by showing them some as well and hopefully you keep them from shutting you and their mom out of their lives by the time they make their way through high school. That's the only way, and the right way, to truly protect your daughters from drug abuse.

Quote:
We agree on that, but teaching my kid to smoke a phattie does not strike me as responsible or sensible conduct.

I may be wrong here, but I don't think Frem was suggesting that it is responsible or sensible conduct. Frem's never struck me as a pot-head or against the war on drugs simply because he believes that everyone should be smoking pot. I think he was just illustrating a point that if your kids are going to be doing something potentially dangerous, it's probably more preferable that they had a safe enviornment to do it in rather than one of those places that would give you nightmares. Personally, I agree with you that kids, at least under the age of 16, should not smoke pot. I don't believe a lot of medical studies the "experts" churn out on a daily basis, but I knew people in highschool that were burnouts by the time they were 15, sniffing rubber cement when they couldn't get drugs and I really do believe that in the prime developmental years you can really physically and emotionally mess yourself up if you're chemically altering your brain on a regular basis.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 11:02 PM

Close.

Lemme put it this way -

Look at abstinence only Sex Education, along with the lies and distortions fed to kids right along with it.

Not only does it not work, it breaks trust between their world and ours because WE LIED TO THEM.

Current drug education is based on the exact same model, proven ineffective, proven a failure, and yet somehow it's supposed to magically work this time around ?

Bullshit, and for the record I used their "catalog of horrors" as a goddamn experimentation CHECKLIST in my own time, mainly because I wanted to know, and knew they were once again lying to me.

And I found that drugs just never "did it" for me, I preferred a clear mind, and none of them were entertaining enough to justify the price.

And as mentioned before, had to solo a crash course in actual sex education by obtaining materials illegal for someone my age to possess.

Kids are going to experiment, and the worse you try to pen them in, the more you encourage it due to their nature - and lying to them doesn't help matters a whit, it just insures they'll never place any real trust in you ever again.

Now, say, were I to catch my older niece with a nickle bag, rather than throw a total fit about it, why not put matters right by having a chat about responsible use while they fire it up in the back yard under your supervision instead of a dangerous environment they would then be facing with less than perfect judgement.

Or you could go right on with the utterly failed model we use for sexual matters, rant, rave, scream and demand they never ever do that while throwing dire threats - see how that works for you.

The key is trust and respect, one could ask a friend of mine's son about that kind of thing, who got a lesson about responsible drinking from a yours truly gentling needling him throughout the porcelin worship and skull splitting aftermath of a drinking binge with some of his less respectable friends - his own embarrassment did more to curb that behavior than any threat his parents might have offered, cause it made him look like an idiot in front of someone he respected.

Kids are gonna do kid things, it's simple human nature, and a caring hand gently but firmly guiding them down the path of responsibility is far more effective than threats, lies and other conduct which will, in the end, cost you their respect and ensure things get worse as they do these things out of retaliation or spite.

Good parenting renders the whole issue moot, is what I am saying - absolute prohibition doesn't work on a social scale, as witnessed here, so therefore why in the hell would anyone in their right mind think it would on an individual scale ?

And responding with force, lies and threats does not work on a social scale, ergo, why would THAT serve any use individually either ?

Do you get the concept ?
Or have I come at it so sideways again that no one can make sense of it ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 9, 2008 11:53 PM

I get it, and I don't disagree with it. That's a tough sell for a lot of folk though. Easier to stick with the failed model they're familiar with than to try something new. All I know is that I'm turning 30 in a year, and then I'm going to be on the other side.... the one that kids automatically don't trust. And that to me, is kinda sad.

I'm never going to let my kids believe in Santa that's for sure. I remembered figuring that out on my own and being pretty pissed off at the time. I find the whole experience horiffic actually, and I can't believe that millions of parents every year fill their kids heads with this these lies of a magical world, only to have it ripped away from them when they're finally too old to believe in such non-sensiacal things.

Like that one time when I turned 17 and figured out on my own that Santa wasn't real. I cried for days on end. Then I found Satanism and started smoking excessive amounts of pot and cigarettes, drinking a half of case of beer every night, and started having insane amounts of wild unprotected orgy sex every night since.

I'm actually having sex with a donkey and shotgunning vodka and redbull before exhaling my bong hit and getting a taint-tickle by some skanky goth chicks while I'm writing this. At least... I think they're chicks.... who cares? It just feels good, right Donkey?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm actually having sex with a donkey and shotgunning vodka and redbull before exhaling my bong hit and getting a taint-tickle by some skanky goth chicks while I'm writing this. At least... I think they're chicks.... who cares? It just feels good, right Donkey?

It's really not safe to read this board before breakfast...

/me looks for something sharp to gouge out his mind's eye.

But you gotta let your kids believe in Santa. It's one of the healthiest lessons that we teach children.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
/me looks for something sharp to gouge out his mind's eye.

Here ya go Sarge.... use this steletto heel. It's one of the vampire goth shemales' so don't worry yourself about washing any blood off it when you're done.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:32 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein9-2008may09,
0,1639734.column

"I always wondered what would happen if marijuana were legalized for anyone over 18. It seems it already has been, and nothing happened."

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:42 AM

Jack, it's all in how you come at them,

See, kids have notoriously effective bullshit detectors, and are very good at giving you a cheerful stonewall while parroting all the socially-accepted challenge response answers, and all the while hating your guts behind the facade.

My approach is based on the social jungian arch-types and how we respond even unconsciously to them, combined with a real world understanding and compassion for them that cannot be faked.

I don't come across to them as an ordinary adult, but rather I play to the wise old man/mentor archtype with a side order of crazy uncle.

Most kids, especially in this day and age have what would be best termed a psychic gap, they're unknowingly looking for an adult who is not part of their perceived authority structures who might be willing to part with 'secrets' - it's almost a psychological imperative at those ages to desire wisdom and seek to obtain it, going to "visit the hermit" and seek his wisdom has been culturally and psychologically part of us since primitive times.

And so, when they find someone who so clearly fits the bill, they pull up a chair and listen, and the combination of respect, compassion and actually imparting that wisdom such as you may be able, lodges you in their mind in a fashion they don't have the world experience to completely comprehend yet.

This transaction, passing the knowledge and experience of the elders down to younger generations is a venerated tradition mostly missing from our society in part due to our educational system, which may impart knowledge, but is incapable of imparting wisdom.

Subconsciously, they feel the lack, an emptyness they couldn't put into words even if you asked them, but it's clearly there to anyone who understands that level of social pyschology - believe me, there are many bad actors who play to kids other psycho-social lacks every bit as effectively.

Once you've bridged that gap, as long as you treat them with respect and compassion, and set an example with your own behavior, you WILL get respect in return, and depending on the child and how socially, mentally and emotionally deprived they are, you might wind up having to deal with near deification on their behalf, at which point it's a good idea to point out your own flaws and explain some things about human imperfections, before that goes in stupid directions.

Kinda sucks though, when someone with real world experience and true craft isn't qualified as a Guidance Counsellor cause they didn't spend years in the artificial bubble world of a college and mortgage their entire life for a job that will never recoup even half the price....

And the clueless dweeb that did is so wholly ineffective at his job that he's a virtual laughingstock of the entire student body.

By the way, not only did the kid I mentioned before successfully fix the washer, he's talked the folks into letting him install a garbage disposal under their sink come summer vacation.

THAT kid has a serious future as an appliance tech, and I have put a reccommendation for him in at the local Vo-Tech.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:31 AM

Oh, yeah, worthy of note since no one else seems to have mentioned it yet...

The first attempt to prohibit Weed was in fact by taxing it out of existance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Act

That was eventually shot down on Constitutional grounds by Tim Leary, only to be quickly replaced when there was no longer a need to pretend it wasn't intended to be prohibition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

So, when big daddy gov slaps that "Fat Tax" on your cheeseburger, maybe you oughta ponder a little history.

Meanwhile, some folks are makin a MINT on truckloads of smokes runnin northbound on I-95.

Commerce Continues.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:25 AM

KIRKULES

I think Frem and Jack have got it right(except the donkey part). My daughter is Jacks age and has never really been interested in drugs or alcohol. I attribute this partially to the honesty with which we treated the subject when she was young, and the other part is that our family is not prone to addictive behavior. I remember when I was young and my mother gave me the don't use drugs speech. My mother was a mental heath professional at a VA hospital for years and saw first hand the worst case scenarios for drug use. Despite that, the anti-drug speech she gave me was a totally factual description of the effects of different drugs and the potential effects of abuse. It was quite a shocker to me considering the anti-drug propaganda I had been taught in school to that point. Her primary concern was that I stay away from methamphetamines because most of the really bad cases she saw were due to them. This speech took away all the mystery of drugs for me and also took away the "forbidden fruit" aspect. I am very grateful to my mother for giving me the ability to share the same knowledge with my daughter. I do understand however that if my daughter or I had a genetic disposition toward addiction things might have worked out differently.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You were the one who used as your example drugs on a college campus, mkay."

You watch South Park ? (I probably would have spelled it 'm'kay ?' .)

While brain physiology, biochemistry and other studies put the end of teenage brain remodeling at around 21-22 (with females earlier and males later, in general), we are stuck with a society that places the end of childhood at the end of high school for most things. Maybe that needs to be revisited.

I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t think that will solve anything. First of all, I don’t believe that 21-22 number. I’m sure many people much smarter then me on the topic could speak at great length on why that number is significant, but the in my experience the end of childhood is much older 25-28, on average. But still, I know 14 year olds that I would consider more mature then some 30 and 40 year olds. The need for an age of adulthood is not based on the view that at some point people mature, but that society cannot coddle them forever, so we demand them to mature. Eventually we have to say that at some age, you’re essentially on your own for all legal intents and purposes. That’s fine. I can accept that. At some point we must all become responsible for our lives and the choices me make. What I don’t like is the view held by some legalization proponents that they are somehow exempt from responsibility in the matter. They preach responsibility as the solution to avoiding using drugs in a society were drugs are legal, but they don’t seem to want to accept responsibility for that legalization of drugs that ruins the lives of young people who might otherwise never have touched the stuff except for the fact that legalization has proliferated these drugs like alcohol. All the proponents of legalization that I know would never touch the hardcore drugs, but they don’t seem to have any problem letting these drugs ruin the lives of young people just so they can feel as if they could use those drugs if they wanted to.

And I do watch South Park.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Buying, selling and smoking cigarettes are still legal in this country, but you ask a majority in here you're going to find that most folk don't think it's okay. Just because something is legalized doesn't mean that overnight you're going to be the only person in the world with sense enough to know that it isn't good for you.

It wasn’t that long ago that I was the only person, as far as I know, who didn’t smoke - so I don’t accept this argument. The difference here is that nicotine is not a very dangerous drug, all things considered. And it’s not that difficult to get off of. Over the course of the last twenty years practically every friend, and family member I’ve had, has stopped smoking without much more inconvenience then a few bitchy weeks. But heroin is not so easy to quite. Many people never manage to get off of it, even though their life crumbles around them and those that do get off, only do so after they have lost everything. And as soon as thinks like heroin are legalized, assuming it ever is, and it’s available down at the corner market or wherever, it will be everywhere. It will be like cigarettes. It will become the symbol of the real man for some people. Most people won’t bother with it, but some will, and probably the young naïve ones. And like cigarettes, that story won’t last. Cigarettes for a few decades where in every nook and cranny of our country, until finally we wised up and now cigarette users are a pariah. That cycle will probably repeat much faster with heroin, because the effects of heroin are astronomically worse then cigarettes and it’s possible heroin might nearly disappear after that, but not before the pile of ruined lives peaks to an all time high.

As far as your parenting advice. I don’t buy into the defeatist view of parenting. I don’t assume that children will be fuck ups, so that I must protect them from themselves by providing them with the tools and encouragement they need to make shitty decisions, because I assume they will make them anyways. So I don’t feel the need to expose my children to drugs so that they can become potheads and junkies in the safety of my living room. I think they are smart enough to avoid using drugs, my lack of faith in them will serve to do nothing more then make them feel as if they aren’t smart enough and make them more likely to become drug users.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:32 AM