Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Muchos Gracias, Los Estados Unidos (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Muchos Gracias, Los Estados Unidos
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-sterry/mexican-drug-lord-officia_b_179596.html?view=screen

quote:
Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera reported head of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico, ranked 701st on Forbes' yearly report of the wealthiest men alive, and worth an estimated $1 billion, today officially thanked United States politicians for making sure that drugs remain illegal. According to one of his closest confidants, he said, "I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you."
When's all this nonsense gonna end?
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What nonsense? People thinking that drugs should be legal?
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and I think it is "Muchas gracias"...
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-sterry/mexican-drug-lord-officia_b_179596.html?view=screen

quote:
Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera reported head of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico, ranked 701st on Forbes' yearly report of the wealthiest men alive, and worth an estimated $1 billion, today officially thanked United States politicians for making sure that drugs remain illegal. According to one of his closest confidants, he said, "I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you."
When's all this nonsense gonna end?
It looks like there are promising signs that this administration is going shift policy away from the drug war. They're already deciding to leave medical marijuana alone and dropped the Drug Czar to a much lower level in the administration. I wouldn't be surprised if mandatory sentencing laws and the like are not far behind.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This nonsense: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/20-marijuana-arrests-set-new-record/
quote:
...But the sheer numbers suggest it deserves more attention. Nearly 830,000 marijuana arrests are made annually, about 89 percent of them for simple possession, not sales or trafficking. That’s one marijuana arrest every thirty-eight seconds, and more arrests for marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined. Put another way, it’s the equivalent of arresting every man, woman, and child in the state of North Dakota plus every man, woman, and child in Des Moines, Iowa, in one year—and doing the same thing every year, year after year. All of this comes at a total cost to taxpayers estimated at anywhere from $14 billion to $42 billion per year.

New national arrest statistics won’t be out until about the time this book is published, but scientific data continue to emerge that demolish the intellectual underpinnings of marijuana prohibition. Studies continue to find marijuana far less toxic or addictive than such legal drugs as alcohol and tobacco, while in Britain, where most marijuana possession arrests were discontinued in January 2004, marijuana use has steadily declined since arrests stopped, according to official government surveys. Sadly, even though the British government’s scientific advisors urge continuation of the no-arrest policy, as of this writing in May 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown appears determined to launch a new crackdown.


Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Legalizing drugs will simply allow the drug culture's elite to make its way into main stream society while continuing to marginalize those who suffer the worst effects of it. It's no wonder this guy is broadcasting such a clear message. If they legalized his activities, he would suddenly have a fortune and legitimacy instead of just a fortune.

As for the whole prison thing, people in the US are actually sentenced to shorter prison terms today than they were forty years ago for the same crime, they just actually serve most of it as opposed to the earlier leniency. Switching back might be a better considered alternative than just saying **** it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Legalizing drugs will simply allow the drug culture's elite to make its way into main stream society while continuing to marginalize those who suffer the worst effects of it.
The idea that "mainstream" society is NOT drugged to the gills is already nothing more than a mere delusion as was your namesake - the potemkyn villages.

Oh please, defender of society from the ills of psychedelic compounds...please tell us how a society in which whole populations of children are put on Ritalin, and whole populations of adults are subjected to serotonin-altering pharmaceuticals is supposed be so worried about the corruption to society that may result from dismantling the POLICE STATE involved in criminalizing a PLANT in a person's closet or backyard?!?!?!

[Exploding]

[ April 07, 2009, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

Please tell me how the society would benefit from placing even more powerful drugs to fall into the hands of those with the power and resources to spread them even further and to other populations.

I'll be honest Daruma, for an obvious foe of government and big business collusion, this seems like it would be a no brainer for you.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
potemkyn,

To be honest with you, I've come to my current position through experience.

I've had friends die from pharmaceutical drugs that were prescribed by doctors.

I've seen parents giving their kids drugs like Ritalin.

These are drugs that ALTER people's minds and personalities, on a somewhat permanent basis.

The most powerful mood changing, thought changing, behavior influencing pharmaceuticals ARE ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF BIG PHARMA AND GOVERNMENT COLLUSION.

It's an absolute travesty of common sense and reason that a plant like marijuana, or even the cocoa or poppy plants, gives the State a justified rationale to violate citizens constitutional rights to feed the prison industrial complex on one hand, while on the other hand, drugs that are just as destructive and/or lethal are doled out to the citizenry with a nod of approval by our oh so benevolent government.

There are far more people out there under the influence of legal pharma-copia at any given moment than there are taking illicit drugs.

The war on drugs has been an absolute failure from the perspective of "stopping society from doing harmful drugs."

But it's been one RAGING success in providing career opportunities for a militarized police force and the literal exponential explosion of an industrial prison complex that makes us the most highly incarcerated society in the world!

As long as people continue to swallow the lies you are espousing here. And please...I'm not personally attacking you - your logical reasoning is all too common, I understand that your line of thought comes from a genuine concern for the well-being of society.

I merely say that to the well meaning like you, you need to wake up and SEE what is exactly going on...

In the name of protecting the citizens from DRUGS we have to create a police state that regularly violates our constitutional rights and ruins peoples lives forever!??!?!!

Who suffers more...the children of a parent that smokes some weed occasionally...or the children put into Foster care because the State conducted a military styled raid on their parents house just because of some plants in the basement?!?!?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

The drug trade has created a state within a state everywhere. You do realize that the draconian measures will still be necessary once legalized because that state will not simply go away because people want it to do so. In the short term, legalizing drugs will result in greater violence from both sides.

Potemkyn

PS The Potemkyn villages thing was a low blow... very offensive. [Smile]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You do realize that the draconian measures will still be necessary once legalized because that state will not simply go away because people want it to do so.
You got me there. [LOL]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Getting high does not cause crime (with the exception of alcohol and PCP).

Withdrawal and the need to get more drugs causes crime. Claiming turf causes crime. Sending nonviolent criminals to prison causes nonviolent people to learn to use violence to survive. When they are released, they commit worse and more violent crimes. Partly because they have been trained to do so in prison, and partly because society has stigmatized them, making it even more unlikely they will get anything resembling a decent job.

Illegal drugs makes drug abuse worse, creates an industry regulated 100% by violence, promotes even more corruption, and costs billions of dollars.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are a lot of people who can use currently illegal recreational drugs and still be self-sufficient, productive members of society.

What do we do about those who use newly legalized drugs and become unproductive and unable or unwilling to be self-sufficient?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KonerAtHome
Member
Member # 2168

 - posted      Profile for KonerAtHome   Email KonerAtHome       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I support the legalization of drugs. Marijuana specifically but who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot put into their bodies. To me it has become a question of appropriate time and place, and what is that.

What I mean by that is, employers have to provide a place for their employees to take smoke breaks, what happens when they start lighting up the bong during "working" hours? Does an employer have to live with it or can he say "you can smoke cigarettes but you can't smoke pot at work". What about other formerly illegal drugs does an employer have to accept in the workplace? Just how much is the employer liable for in the case when one of his employeers, high on weed, gets another, non-drug using employee, killed? You can usually tell when a guy is drunk and send him home, you can't always tell when someone is high, especially on pot. Sure he can fire the guy who was high, but is he still financially liable to the guy who was hurt for failure to provide a "safe" working environment. What about drug testing, can an employer still test his employees? If I as an employer do not want to hire drug users to avoid potential lawsuits employees injured by their coworkers use of drugs am I now subject to lawsuits for discriminating hirinig practices?

Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, you have to hire drug users now because it's legal. In fact, when talking about medicinal marijuana, obviously you aren't allowed to disriminate against them because of their medical condition. I'm not speaking in a legal sense of course, but in a rhetorical sense because that's a good question you raise and that's my opinion on it. If someone gets hurt, yes the employer gets sued. If the employer doesn't hire the drug users, yes, they get sued. It's a win-win situation.

For lawyers.

No offense if someone is one. [Smile]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are employers forced to allow their workers to drink alcohol on the job, too? You people live in a very strange country.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KonerAtHome
Member
Member # 2168

 - posted      Profile for KonerAtHome   Email KonerAtHome       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can usually tell when a guy is drunk and send him home, you can't always tell when someone is high, especially on pot
It is the rare drunk who can hide his intoxication, so it's easy to fire him, or send him home to protect him, and your other employees from his dangerous actions. It is very common for pot smokers to show no outward signs of their intoxication, as many proud smokers will tell you. If I don't know that one of my employees is high, I can't protect him, and more importantly my other employees from his dangerous actions. Unfortunately if he kills or maims someone on the job, as their employer I'm still liable for it.

That really has nothing to do with the legality of drugs, and I don't honestly see it as justification for their continued prohibition. But I would like for employers to have that option of random drug testing to be able to protect my business.

Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Employers currently have to let employees drink at home as long as they don't come in drunk.

Employers currently do NOT have to let employees use illegal drugs at home even if they come in after the effects have worn off. The drug tests aren't like a field sobriety check after all. They can detect drugs weeks after they were used.

So that's a difference.

Basically, employers won't be able to perform drug screening anymore, and this will open them up to liability issues.

Again, just an off the cuff opinion based on nothing, but as long as that's admitted up front, I think it's fair.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
"I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal.

Didn't he leave someone off of his list?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John Belushi?
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KonerAtHome
Member
Member # 2168

 - posted      Profile for KonerAtHome   Email KonerAtHome       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Basically, employers won't be able to perform drug screening anymore, and this will open them up to liability issues.
Trucking companies now do random testing on their truck drivers. If drugs are legalized and drug testing then becomes illegal just think of the thousands of 18 wheelers out there making all night runs with drivers hopped up on all sorts of stimulants. Are UPS, FEDEX, Schnieder, and all the other long haul trucking companies going to be willing to accept that liability? Shipping costs are going to skyrocket for them to be able to keep insurance. All it's going to take is one stoned trucker barrelling into a school bus at 70mph because the State won't be able to drug screen for CDLs any longer.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A little secret from the functional stoners out there (I am not one, but know several) - they are already high at work, on the road while driving around your kid's school buses, while at home, and while at Taco Bell.

And there are a hell of a lot more of them out there than you can imagine.

I would think they can simply change the tests to determine if someone is high right now vs. high last week. Kind of like a pot version of the breathalyzer. When there's a need, science will quickly figure it out.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by potemkyn:
Legalizing drugs will simply allow the drug culture's elite to make its way into main stream society while continuing to marginalize those who suffer the worst effects of it. It's no wonder this guy is broadcasting such a clear message. If they legalized his activities, he would suddenly have a fortune and legitimacy instead of just a fortune.


Just like Joe Kennedy!

Just Say Whatever!

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What I mean by that is, employers have to provide a place for their employees to take smoke breaks, what happens when they start lighting up the bong during "working" hours?"

I agree. When we legalized alcohol, how will we prevent workers from having a couple of drinks on their lunch break? [Roll Eyes]


"If drugs are legalized and drug testing then becomes illegal just think of the thousands of 18 wheelers out there making all night runs with drivers hopped up on all sorts of stimulants."

It's illegal to test your employees for being drunk? I know many jobs will fire you if you appear too hungover. Even if I didn't believe that truckers were already loaded with uppers, I doubt it will violate some sacred constitutional right for the company to ensure their employees have not been stoned on the job.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anyone believe truckers aren't taking speed on long-hauls? How do you spell naive?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*Pops methylphenidate* Where's a truck to drive? I meet all the requirements.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KonerAtHome
Member
Member # 2168

 - posted      Profile for KonerAtHome   Email KonerAtHome       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yup truckers pop all sorts of stuff now. Whatever they can buy at the counter of the next truck stop. Drink Red Bull by the 6 pack. All legal and all very limited in it's effectiveness and in many cases completely ineffective. But legalize the currently illegal stimulants that truckers are tested for randomly by their employer and at least annually to keep the CDL and how many MORE of them will start to use the really effective stuff?

I know a LOT of long haul truckers. Half of my family are long haul truckers. I am not naive in the least little bit. What is naive is to think for one minute that just legalizing a whole slew of currently illegal drugs without trying to put some controls in place first is going to solve any problems. It won't. It will solve the problems of crime and punishment that is the whole problem with system now. But it will open up far more problems than most pro-legalization advocates are willing to even think about. Especially in the short term.

I'm all for legalizing drugs as I have said. Again who am I to tell you what you can and can't put into your body. I'm just advocating doing so in a responsible, controlled manner that has a goal of preventing as many unnecessary deaths as possible. And don't doubt for one minute that just legalizing everything at once isn't going to cost a great number of innocent bystanders to lose their lives.

I would much rather have a control in place to punish the irresponsible that just MIGHT make them think about their actions before they do something that gets someone else killed. I want to be able to drive down the road and know that if some stoned idiot runs into the side of my car and kills my family, that he is going to be punished and not just let go because he was legally high and it was "just an accident". The current DUI laws are in place to cover alcohol specifically. They do NOT necessarily cover other intoxicating substances. Those laws would all have to be expanded to include ALL intoxicating substances BEFORE those substances became legal to use. The legal tools to enforce the responsible use would have to be in place BEFORE any widescale legalization.

I'm all for continued random drug testing of airline pilots, truck drivers, train engineers, ship captains, bus drivers, cabbies, anyone who carries a gun for a living, anyone who is responsible for the safety of one or more people other than themselves.

Basically what I'm suggesting is that there be a LOT of planning before the doors to the medicine cabinets are flung open. The laws protecting innocents from drunk drivers didn't happen over night. They took far to many years to be put into place and far too many people were killed that didn't need to be killed to protect the responsible from the irresponsible.

Think, plan, act then smoke to your hearts content. Just know that if you do so in an irresponsible manner that the law is going to punish you to the fullest extent. That would be my hope.

Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the government truly cared about lives lost, it would implement policies that did not promote the export of gang related deaths in the country's 3rd world neighbours.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right now DUI laws cover being intoxicated by "legal" drugs. Why would that be any different if the "legal" drug was weed or speed instead of alcohol or prescription muscle relaxers?

And everybody you know or are related too might be long-haul truckers but just because your family and friends might not take stimulants that you know of doesn't mean that the vast majority of truckers don't. My next door neighbor is a long haul truck driver (though nobody in my family is so I guess you got me there) and so are most of his friends, and so are a lot of people I've known over the years, and guess what; if I was going to try to find speed the first place I'd go would be to a long-haul trucker.

KE

[ April 08, 2009, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pamela, on top of the gang deaths we export, we also import thousands and thousands of deaths every year in our country.


"But legalize the currently illegal stimulants that truckers are tested for randomly by their employer and at least annually to keep the CDL and how many MORE of them will start to use the really effective stuff?"

Well, legalizing the drug does not stop the company from testing for it. Will they be any less fired for using those drugs after the drug is legal? I doubt it, because the problem is using drugs while on the job (driving), not just because it is illegal.

"What is naive is to think for one minute that just legalizing a whole slew of currently illegal drugs without trying to put some controls in place first is going to solve any problems. It won't. It will solve the problems of crime and punishment that is the whole problem with system now. But it will open up far more problems than most pro-legalization advocates are willing to even think about. Especially in the short term."

Well the entire point of ending prohibition (in my view, anyways) is so it can be regulated in an effective way. I think the only reason you don't hear much about regulation is because Americans can never get past the hysteria that the topic of drugs brings out in a public which has been brainwashed and lied to about drugs for decades.

But I do think that the vast majority of problems we'll run into will be solved simply by applying similar rules to mind altering drugs as are applied to alcohol. (Also taking some of that money we're making on taxes, or wasting on prisons right now, and put it into programs to show the harmful effects of drugs and drug addictions.)

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Legalizing drugs will simply allow the drug culture's elite to make its way into main stream society while continuing to marginalize those who suffer the worst effects of it."

Not what happened in any country that tried it, like the Netherlands or more pertinently Portugal. They decriminalized all drugs in 2002 or so, without doing any of the coffee shop thing. It's not even "legal", it's simply not a criminal issue anymore. Period.

Now they rank around the bottom in addiction rates and drug harm statistics. It's like the old cold joke - a week with medication, seven days without - only if the "cold medicine" cost billions and had horrendous side effects.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pamela? Do I look like a Pamela? (not everyone in Canada is silicone enhanced, you know)
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shania is that you?
Maybe just Mike Meyers in disguise again...

[ April 09, 2009, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KonerAtHome
Member
Member # 2168

 - posted      Profile for KonerAtHome   Email KonerAtHome       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And everybody you know or are related too might be long-haul truckers but just because your family and friends might not take stimulants that you know of doesn't mean that the vast majority of truckers don't. My next door neighbor is a long haul truck driver (though nobody in my family is so I guess you got me there) and so are most of his friends, and so are a lot of people I've known over the years, and guess what; if I was going to try to find speed the first place I'd go would be to a long-haul trucker.

So your small sampling trumps my small sampling?

I KNOW that truckers take stuff to stay awake. Most of it is what they buy at truckstops along the highway. But I would never presume to say that the "vast majority" do or do not take illegal stimulants just because I know a few truckers who do or don't. I know a few who don't take illegal stuff you know a few who do. Leave it at that and don't pretend or claim to know what the "vast majority" do.

And no, DUI laws do not always cover "legal" drugs. Many DUI laws are alcohol specific.

Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Personally I say we execute the laws as written and live with the consequences of these laws.

That the consequences are bad due to ineffectual half measures is on consequence. That the part of society that uses drugs is held hostage by the current laws is a consequence.

The laws need to be expunged. The criminalization of the society needs to be redeemed. Tax drugs to the hilt & make them legal.

For the most part, those who will continue using them long term will be ineffectually harmless. And as a side effect it may lead to their predisposition to using recreational drugs being bred out of our gene pool either due to the long term negative effects of recreational drugs on libido or the more Darwin Award worthy events such as people on PCP flying off ten story buildings.

Honestly using drugs is a cop out on life. But it is simply stupid we are even trying to prevent the use of these drugs as a social engineering policy in an open society. Such activity never works and only alienates people from respecting or contributing to society ultimately.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"either due to the long term negative effects of recreational drugs on libido."

20 years now, still way too horny for my own damn good. I'll let you know when that happens. [Smile]

I agree with your overall thrust, of course, and though it would be interesting to observe Redskull on Northern Lights, I'm happy for you to believe what you want and use that belief to keep refraining. I'm not quite sure you understand what a drug is and what constitutes alternated consciousness, but again, your prerogative.

[ April 11, 2009, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL

Ricky the acid stories I could tell you would leave your eyes wanting to hear more. Do not assume that because I realized pretty early on drugs were ultimately a cop out that I have no personal experience.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, so you're a burnout. Why didn't you say so? [Big Grin] (just kidding, don't start a flame war).
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MA turned marijuana possession into a simple 100 dollar fine for small amounts by ballot initiative in november. I'm kinda curious to see how this goes
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Legalizing drugs will simply allow the drug culture's elite to make its way into main stream society while continuing to marginalize those who suffer the worst effects of it.
The idea that "mainstream" society is NOT drugged to the gills is already nothing more than a mere delusion as was your namesake - the potemkyn villages.

Oh please, defender of society from the ills of psychedelic compounds...please tell us how a society in which whole populations of children are put on Ritalin, and whole populations of adults are subjected to serotonin-altering pharmaceuticals is supposed be so worried about the corruption to society that may result from dismantling the POLICE STATE involved in criminalizing a PLANT in a person's closet or backyard?!?!?!

[Exploding]

What did the good book say? "From the fullness of your colon, your mouth speaketh?"

Whole populations? Well, there seems to be a lot my wife and kids aren't telling me. But none of the kids have been chanting from "This Perfect Day" so excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical.


Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei,
Led us to this perfect day.
Marx, Wood, Wei and Christ,
All but Wei were sacrificed.
Wood, Wei, Christ and Marx,
Gave us lovely schools and parks.
Wei, Christ, Marx and Wood,
Made us humble, made us good.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1