To Protect and to Serve...

[n_huffhines]

Lol. Your "critical" thinking is what's ass backwards. Still not sure where the "war on drugs" slogan is coming from unless you're still living in the 80s. Nowadays it's just enforcing the law and most times a drug charge correlates to some other criminal behavior. Keep living in your little world thinking you're some sort of philosopher with a "beautiful mind" lol.

Listen to yourself. You're trying to re-brand it to fool yourself into buying in.

Don't put "beautiful mind" in quotes as if I said that. You're so disingenuous.

 

[govols/cc]

Listen to yourself. You're trying to re-brand it to fool yourself into buying in.

No you're trying to brand it like it's a singular issue in itself.

 

[Obsessed]

Another damn cop---


Police officer forms special bond with woman in need - NBC-2.com WBBH News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral & Naples, Florida

DESOTO, Texas (HLNTV) - Dorothy Shepard, a 73-year-old widow, received a helping hand from a DeSoto police officer.

Officer John Holder came to the door of Shepard's home for her wellness check. Shepard lives alone and is recovering from knee and back surgeries.

"She struck me as someone that really needed someone to care and help her out," Holder tells CNN affiliate WFAA.

The officer gave Shepard his cell phone number and told her if she needed anything to call him.

Shepard was surprised by the gesture.

For the past six months, Holder has driven Shepard to and from every doctor's appointment when he's off-duty.

"I know police officers, but I never expected him to be that kind, and to go out of their way," says Shepard.

 

[hog88]

It's not going away regardless. Your vision is a pipe dream. It's hard to believe some if you actually think the government will actually support a privatized business in manufacturing methamphetamine, cocaine, heroine, and other illicit drugs.

You're probably right, the government wont. Why?

It would require them to give up too much control over us the citizens and lessen their excuses for violating our privacy and rights. Plus it would put a crap load of cops, prison guards and other government employees out of business.

 

[n_huffhines]

No you're trying to brand it like it's a singular issue in itself.

Richard Nixon coined the phrase. I'll call it what it's always been called, and what the people who oppose me call it. What's fairer than that?

 

[govols/cc]

You're probably right, the government wont. Why?

It would require them to give up too much control over us the citizens and lessen their excuses for violating our privacy and rights. Plus it would put a crap load of cops, prison guards and other government employees out of business.

It would probably increase business for all law enforcement.

 

[hog88]

It would probably increase business for all law enforcement.

No!

What on earth makes you think that there would be a sudden explosion of drug addicts with legalization?

Those using now would continue and very few of those who don't would start.

 

[govols/cc]

Richard Nixon coined the phrase. I'll call it what it's always been called, and what the people who oppose me call it. What's fairer than that?

How's the "war on poverty" going? It just created and continues to create generations of lazy entitlement free loaders. Add government to regulating drugs and it adds more to that along with more drug addicts, rehab clinics, and more crime (although simple possession will be gone, how great).

 

[govols/cc]

No!

What on earth makes you think that there would be a sudden explosion of drug addicts with legalization?

Those using now would continue and very few of those who don't would start.

That's your opinion. Weed smokers have become pretty brash in the states that legalized.

 

[MercyPercy]

Nancy be like

He thinks that legalization would create a World War Z scenario with brand new drug addict zombies flooding the streets and destroying society as we know it. Guy is so paralyzed by the drug war propaganda that he doesn't see the absurdity in continuing the same failed program for decades.

 

[n_huffhines]

How's the "war on poverty" going? It just created and continues to create generations of lazy entitlement free loaders. Add government to regulating drugs and it adds more to that along with more drug addicts, rehab clinics, and more crime (although simple possession will be gone, how great).

WTF does this have to do with the discussion? When the government declares war on anything, get ready for it to become a bigger problem. Just like the war on drugs.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

That's your opinion. Weed smokers have become pretty brash in the states that legalized.

No, they haven't. You're just spewing falsehoods now because literally everyone in here is calling you on your bull****.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Nancy be like

He thinks that legalization would create a World War Z scenario with brand new drug addict zombies flooding the streets and destroying society as we know it. Guy is so paralyzed by the drug war propaganda that he doesn't see the absurdity in continuing the same failed program for decades.

I think we can chalk it up to the fact that he's just a huge p****.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

As someone that brews his own beer, I can assure you that you are correct. I can produce 60 beers at a cost of about $0.70 per bottle. So that's pretty cheap. The issue is that it takes me about 6 hours on a Saturday to do it. And it isn't easy. Also, there is a legal cap to how much you can brew per year as a home Brewer. The limit is 200 gallons. So asinine.

Methinks we need to start a homebrew thread in the pub. I've been seeing various posters bringing it up lately with the holidays rolling around.

 

[hndog609]

Those using now would continue and very few of those who don't would start.

Not trying to be argumentative but merely asking; on what is this belief based? It seems assumptive that there is essentially no relationship between people not using drugs and illegality.

I'm sure there's much arguing to be had over to what degree such a thing would happen but I find it very hard to accept that removing illegality wouldn't result in a definite increase in previously illicit usage.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Not trying to be argumentative but merely asking; on what is this belief based? It seems assumptive that there is essentially no relationship between people not using drugs and illegality.

I'm sure there's much arguing to be had over to what degree such a thing would happen but I find it very hard to accept that removing illegality wouldn't result in a definite increase in previously illicit usage.

I've posted them ad nauseum around here, but I'll just tell you to google Portugal's drug laws and how they've affected violent crime, prison population, and medical treatment in the years after the laws were passed (essentially decriminalized personal amounts of all drugs).

 

[hndog609]

I've posted them ad nauseum around here, but I'll just tell you to google Portugal's drug laws and how they've affected violent crime, prison population, and medical treatment in the years after the laws were passed (essentially decriminalized personal amounts of all drugs).

I'll check that out when I get the chance.

:hi:

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Where do you draw the line? Obesity and fast food? STD treatments and unprotected sex? Heart attacks and bacon?

Sounds like you're just attempting to project your moral high ground. Color me shocked.

No... I freely admit it is a slippery slope which is probably the biggest reason that I am opposed to Obolacare. Taxpayer treatment of anything health related, ESPECIALLY if it is counter to good health practices shoule not be foisted on the taxpayer. Like I said before, you wanna play Russian Roulette, go for it I DON'T CARE if you blow your brains out, but I do care if I have to foot the bill to keep you on a ventilator the rest of your life. I just want people to exercise a little personal responsibility, but reap the fruits of not doing so on their own $$.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Roughly $45,000 a year is stolen from me by the government. And I'm willing to bet that 70 cents of every dollar will be frivilously pissed away by some bureaucracy that champions the virtue of sacrificing for the greater good or some such socialist bullshat. Meanwhile, my wife and I have to eat ramen noodles and have Netflix date nights to avoid going into debt to save up for a house. Some Utopia your government has created for us. And before you give us some idiotic ramblings of how wonderful our quality of life is in America, and how we should all be thankful, I'll go ahead and remind you that nearly every convenience or creature comfort that makes our lives easy and happy, was brought about by private business in a free market, of which the government is a natural enemy.

Naaaaaaah. Can't be. I heard King Putt hisself say that you didn't build that.

 

[hog88]

Not trying to be argumentative but merely asking; on what is this belief based? It seems assumptive that there is essentially no relationship between people not using drugs and illegality.

I'm sure there's much arguing to be had over to what degree such a thing would happen but I find it very hard to accept that removing illegality wouldn't result in a definite increase in previously illicit usage.

I don't think legality has much to do with a persons decision to use or not. I think it has more to do with employment. That's why drug legislation would have to still allow employers to set their own policies.

 

[Obsessed]

I don't think legality has much to do with a persons decision to use or not. I think it has more to do with employment. That's why drug legislation would have to still allow employers to set their own policies.

Not to mention the insurance companys that insure them against liability.

 

[hog88]

Not to mention the insurance companys that insure them against liability.

Oh yeah. I would never support legislation unless we could maintain our drug use policy, which is zero tolerance.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Obviously no employer wants their guy high at work, and there would still be jobs that wouldn't want their employees to ever be high, but if you work on a call floor, WGAF?

The guy paying their salary for starters. The libtards think that slinging Big Macs should pay $15/hour. Call centers need production. How much production will you get from a stoner? Oh, but I am sure it will be protected under some liberal act or other that would say since they have a "problem" you can't fire them... It never ends....

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Do people honestly think if drugs are legalized that all employment rules and testing would suddenly go out the window? No, they wouldn't. I would imagine it would be treated much like we do beer and spirits today. We'd have some kind of testing procedure to tell if someone was high on the job.

Who pays for it?

 

[Obsessed]

Oh yeah. I would never support legislation unless we could maintain our drug use policy, which is zero tolerance.

Agreed. Could you imagine the premiums on a business that allowed drug use?

Holy cow....

Hell the federal gvmt required me to have a zero drug policy program that all employees went through just to bid federal jobs.