Ducky

Who's drawing this line? That person has a political slant. Any opinion is slant, it's not a matter of levels.

You next Sever. Enlighten me, I like listening to theoretical crap. When a book can tell me more about a person than experiencing life as a person and witnessing lives spent as a person, then I've no longer a reason to live. You're attempting to change a fundamental persona of an object that has existed traditionally for numerous years. Good luck with that. Your explanation offers nothing on the part of them getting help. You just distinctly said "We are going to make the drugs easily accessable and cheaper to the public." And threw in "This will allow them to recieve easier help." Help is derived from rehabilitation programs, not making it more cost efficient to ruin your life. You can add more rehabilitation without doing any of the prementioned things. Take Cocaine for example. The largest drawback of this drug is not addiction (though it is) or even availability of decent stuff ( a rarity in some locations) But instead the cost. Let's take a generic price in Southwest PA to work with. (We'll use $ a gram as a median) This is a rather large price compared to down south. Reduce that price to profitless (I can't possibly fathom what this would be, so let's just use 1/4) That's 20$ a gram. I can't speak for you, but that's 4 times the amount that I could get legally now than I could before. What possible incentive do I have to quit. You just made it so affordable, I could do it in complete leisure anytime I desired. The answer was yes, I found the answer just fine.This is not theory either, but rather watching others play out thier life. I have friends who drink now that they are 21 who did not previously to that age. Complete yuppies in my opinion, but it's truth. So truthful, that it's enough to completely validate this statement. Your arguement hinges desperately on the idea that everyone drinks, smokes, cusses and has premarital sex before they are of age. Not true at all. The legality of the change effecting those who decide to now drive fast was part of my analogy. Could there be other reasons to change? Sure. Late for work, emergency.. anything. That still does not change the fact that people WILL go faster because it's now legal to do so. The former was part of my analogy, I didn't need to add exceptions into my claus. You'll have to reword it or elaborate.Taken from your own words, how is the next scenerio plausable. We open up clinics, legislation changes and things become legal. Prices drop. Everyone now thinks drug use is a sickness. Don't have to push the image? You have a huge !@#$%^&*ing gap where I've lost all understanding. How are you getting to your final outcome? I see no logical flow at all. Your analogy doesn't work. You don't get legal profitless sex at an std clinic.

You really do bore me Astro. Your 'solution' to this is to make the illegal things they are doing legal.Not build more jails or space, but to simply make it legal. What's your arguement exactly? These people sell !@#$%^&* to children, lock them the !@#$%^&* up. The money is there, take out the war debt and this is plain as day. It's money efficiency that hurts our governement, not the lack there of. What weed have you smoked where you're insanely addicted that you need a third party to 'nerf' it? That's some awesome bud that I've never come across. Alchohol isn't addictive either. It's still bad Put a snake in a cage and it bites only those stupid enough to stick thier fingers in. Put a snake on the floor and it bites everyone. Your analogies fail as does your arguements. Again.

It being labeled as an illness does not deter anyone from using more than "any police could ever do". Yes, this is illogical.People do quit and not do it because it is a crime and they have gotten caught. You have users who bought them when they were illegal regardless of any detriment (socially) on thier part. These people are not going to quit when it becomes legal. You have people who did not buy them because they were illegal (Detrimental to them socially). Are people from this group going to start doing thwem because they no longer have social reprecussion? Yes. It's the exact same concept of speed limits. A road has a speed limit of 40 MPH. Now, there are those that will never go above that limit and there are those who hit 60 on a daily basis passing through there. Some of those people who went under 40 did so because they don't like the effects fast driving can have. Others did so because they did not want a 300$ speeding ticket. Now, let's increase that road speed to 60 MPH by law. The same amount of people who drove slow from safety still do. The same amount of people who drove 60 originally still do. What group of people change? The group who drove slowly only because it was the law. You can remove the drug dealers, but you aren't going to 'change the image of the drug' That's some type of idealistic bs you're trying to push. How are you determining the drug rate cuts to zero? Dealers don't push drugs on people, people seek them out of thier own curiosity. Not only do they no longer have to actively search for them illegally, they can get them for a cheap as !@#$%^&* price. This isn't cutting new users in any way, this is an advertising campaign Try our new and bold flavored chocolate for 1/4 of the price and we'll deliver it to your mailbox. Something is only legal until it's made illegal. That's the trick about laws and there's no !@#$%^&*footing around it.

Let's trade some crimes for some addictions and deaths. Logically it works out. Just not for the people who are addicted to the drugs. People quitting because the media says it's an illness instead of a crime is illogical though. I guess that kinda puts the idea out the window. Drugs are bad, simply put. I pound an 8 ball every so often for ASSS and giggles and even I realize this. I'm not as inane as to attempt to justify it with bad 'facts' though.

You can't have news without a political affiliation. This is impossible. A newspaper in china writing a story on events in the states still will have a slant.

He's not oversimplifying anything, that's the exact arguement you are making. "This should be ok because that's ok." All the other small little tidbits you throw in are completely trivial. "More jail space" How is this accomplished? People don't get jailed for having a joint. They get jailed for having quan!@#$%^&*ies over what a normal person should have. That's intent to sell. Same jail space. "Revenue for the government" The goverment has enough !@#$%^&*ing money, worry about how they spend it instead of giving them more. The government isn't making !@#$%^&* when there's a complete underground already established. "Government standards" Making is safer to smoke? Is that a complete joke. Cigarettes aren't safe to smoke, wtf does the government care. If they null the effects of the drug, who the !@#$%^&* would want to buy it then. --------- These aren't valid points, they are just something little kids sitting around watching cartoons with the bong think up while they're high.

Is this a serious topic? What a waste of time.

Vegita's right, end arguement. It's not about comparing the effects of one thing to another to justify it. They are already stamping out smoking, it's only a matter of time. Quit whining that the government is helping society. Pot ruins lives, as does alchohol. God forbid we help people who obviously cannot help themselves. Want to smoke pot? Do it, no one is stopping you. If you get caught, then you were 'too high' If it doesn't impair you, you won't get caught.

I personally thought something smaller would do him in. Something like a rare african pygmy dodo wasp or some !@#$%^&* that no one has ever heard of.

Seems like a stereotype battle to me. Match, continue. Conservatives send babies to die in war.

Whos interpretation are you following to classify the judge as being abusive towards children. If he feels he isn't being abusive, but rather teaching his children with a harsh rule for thier own good; What basis do you actually go on? Even law is open to interpretation. What a judge might deem child abuse in one courtroom can differ from another courtroom. It's open to his interpretation of events. ------------- A Doctor can still use a class B treatment against a patient if he feels the class B treatment is a good enough option regardless of how much better the Class A treatment is. That's open to his interpretation of events. And no, the bible is PURELY interpretative. Why do you think there are 12 million versions of the bible, all slightly different than one another. Why do you think there are 12 million branches of christianity exactly? Are not all of them true christians and what makes the difference between followers of one branch as opposed to another. Interpretation.

A priest educates a group about a certain saintly en!@#$%^&*y like a teacher teaches a subject. These are your words. What exactly demands that the person teaching the subject needs to believe in the subject? Do Lawyers agree with every law made? Do Doctors practice the best cures for everything? Simple answer, no. Everything is subjective to the teacher. If a priest who knows that his/her homosexuality wasn't a choice and wants to believe in a god, S/he WILL do just that. It's simply not logical to ultimately be born against god's will. The teaching goes from Point A, to the interpretation of Point A. ------------- This person is believing entirely in what they teach. Because a book was written with no clear factual basis, doesn't mean it's the end all to that particular religion. Christianity is open to interpretation. God was made in your image, you can make up any rules or laws you want to.

When was it mentioned the lesbian priest was attempting to justify it or warp peoples opinions. I was always confused as to why a person could not promote God if they did not believe in him or a part of him. I give people food recipes to foods I would never eat.

Marriage isn't a religious practice. It's a legal practice.

There's the right way, and there's the easy way. By the same standards, We here in the states should have never had a cival war and let things go. It would have been a lot less deadlier to civilians.

A leader, despite there being no other rational choice of leadership still has to take responsibility for his choices and actions. You can not determine whether or not another governmental office could have done better. It's a matter of logic at this point. It's a choice to be in that position and do those things. Bad choice, bad consequence.

Everyone has free will in most situations. A government who has the ability to step away completely because they cannot handle taking responsibility for actions should do so. That's with any situation you do not want to take responsibility for before it's too late. Being raped, held down, tied up-- Those are effects of force. "Because he told me to", Isn't.

No one is going to force a doctor into trying something with a risk that he knows nothing about. Analogy failure

I haven't been checking the forums much recently, but this gem made my night. You're always there for a good laugh when I need it.

That's silly. We don't need a valid excuse to attack other countires. We make them up just fine.

Not necessarily. It's generally against a specific part rather than the entire thing.

I think it quite funny that burning a cross, is uncons!@#$%^&*utional and a flag isn't. I just wanted to point that out as I agree with Sever.

Congress is trying to make burning our flag illegal. Right now it's protected (the act of burning it) under Freedom of Speech. Thoughts?

I hear Iraq is pretty exotic this time of year.