NBVegita

Who's mis-quoting who? Please use the statement in the full context. Not once where you've claimed that I've mis-quoted you, have I yet. I have made inferences based on your statements, but never did I quote you as saying those statements. The point about drug testing is that companies will still not allow you to use drugs and work for them. That would effective enact a plan that helps people become less employable. As for the money you obviously haven't been reading and I'm quite tired of repeating myself. It's not that I don't grasp that the government can produce drugs cheaper, I've never doubted that. My argument is that in order to support the infrastructure you are purposing they would NEED to tax either the drugs or the american people heavily. Being you want it to be non-profit that only leaves one way to finance it. And sever, what don't you get that most people in this country don't want to register for anything. You expect them to jump in line to register as a drug user? Now Doc, Minus the fact that I don't feel the negative effect of m!@#$%^&* drug usage would out weigh the benefits, you have a decent argument. Plus drug usage has a negative effect on poverty, data from the NHSDA.

How does that derail it? Basically no law makers wants to tax companies cause it will lower their kickbacks. !@#$%^&* if they started taxing one side, they have no excuse to not tax the other. The problem isn't pointing out other industries that also need to be taxed, its the fact that they won't tax any of them.

The problem is I do agree with some things, yet I disagree with a lot. Like I would agree with Doc first post/last line with conditions. I think I have pretty much disagreed with everything sever has posted. Could you post anywhere that I have agreed with his concepts? I haven't really argued for or against you fin. For which again I have agreement and disagreements. My post about prohibition is that Sever (to me) presented his 7 steps to LOWER drug usage. The point isn't to take the criminal aspect away and increase drug usage. Releasing prohibition did nothing more then remove the criminalization and increase the usage. And for my post being bad, some of the concepts aren't completely thought out as I'm at work. Sometimes what makes sense in my head isn't making sense on the forums.

I think harvard and the like, should be held just as responsible as any other corporation.

You know I finally read this and what I find funny is this is a quote from Finland in another post: Pertaining to wanting to tax Harvard, because it's not right that they don't pay taxes. I say tax all of the corporations and your educational ins!@#$%^&*utions. Taxing Harvards endowments of 34.9 Billion dollars would help. That would help take the tax burden off of us.

Actually doc, farming your own tobacco and brewing your own beer is very hard and dangerous if not done correctly. Growing marijuana is as easy as dropping some seeds in the soil. Not a very good comparison. Lets look at that logic doc... We have a problem with controlling drugs, so lets legalize them so everyone can have them. At least they're paying tax. I mean when prohibition ended, MORE people drank, not less people. I guess I really don't see the logic. I thought the point of drug legislation was to limit drug use, not turn a profit from it?

I love how when I post a point you have no counter for you just ignore it. In fact you never even apologized for accusing me of misquoting you. Just because I make a statement, that doesn't mean it's in a direct relation to you. I was pre-empting the argument that has been brought up in every other drug argument we've had: Once you make it legal it won't be "cool" anymore and people will stop doing it. No where did I indicate that was towards any of your arguments. In response to confidentiality, most companies force a drug test now. So are you going to make it illegal for me to drug test employees, or illegal to say I don't want someone addicted to cocaine working for me? And I still don't see where your non-profit organization is going to fund this project that would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars, without taxing the !@#$%^&* out of the American people. Oh and being it's the only thing you're nit-picking, I apologize for a typing error. I'm sorry, I am only a human being. You mean disappear You mean burglaries You mean emphasizing You mean labelingSorry my spelling isn't as accute as yours.

Yes feeling good is a positive, but we aren't all allowed to do what makes us feel good. I mean to a pedophile, sleeping with a little girl makes them feel wonderful. I know you'll say well drugs only affect me, but that isn't true. The fact that drugs alter your brain in thousands of ways you never really know what you're going to do on the more powerful drugs. This doesn't ring true for pot, as its a really mellow (comparatively) drug. I mean there are thousands of reasons why most drugs should be illegal simply based on the psychological effects they have on people. It would be like opening a flood gate. The problem with growing is that yes you have your people who grow for personal use, and then you have your people who grow to sell. It's No matter how you cut the pie, it's illegal and you're growing it. I think the government also says that if you have pot in two separate bags, it cons!@#$%^&*utes a will to sell. They can't be lenient because they don't know your intentions. Not that I have much sympathy for many people, but I have none for people who use drugs. If you get caught growing pot, then you either should have been more careful, or been prepared for the consequences of growing an illegal substance. A perfect quote from Astro (in another post) I understand that some people on here personally feel drugs should be legal, but that seems to have added a whole lot of objectivity to the argument. That's why I've stated time and time again in these types of arguments, if someone can prove that legalizing a drug (doesn't have to be all, could just be one) would have a substantial positive economical, political, militaristic, or socialistic effect, then you would have an argument to make it legal. The problem is that every credible argument for legalization has a credible argument denouncing it.

Before you get defensive you should have at least re-read your posts. I mean seriously. Note: I never stated that you said we would tax drugs, I was !@#$%^&*uming that you were intelligent enough to know that it would be impossible to pay for otherwise. The reason why I'm picking on your illness part is because if you make drugs legal and available on a m!@#$%^&* level, the only logical outcome is for their use to increase. You have (to me) insinuated that the illness part would hold a larger part than you just mentioned above. Teenagers who smoke don't magically stop smoking when they become 18 years old because it is now legal to smoke. And Bak, you're right it is your body. But it's my body if someone on acid or LSD happens to think I'm a monster (or any other thousands of hallucinations that could cause them to become aggressive) or if they wander in front of my moving car because they don't realize where they are. I mean that argument is the only argument that is hard to fight except that laws by all governments are dedicated to protecting civilians, even from ourselves sometimes. The problem with drugs is there are no positives to drugs, outside of the very limited medicinal uses. And as for your mention of pot, thats another thing, if the government made it legal, why would you buy it from them? You can grow pot just about anywhere. And sama I'm glad to hear it.

Fin, the only problem with that is that rehab works when people are A) forced into it or truly believe they have an illness. Simply labeling something an illness doesn't make someone believe it is. And being pot is an illegal drug, it would have to be considered part of your category of "illness". Sever: First off where does this "pay off their dealers" come from? People don't buy now - pay later with drugs. So you want to spend billions and billions of dollars on a non-profit organization to allow people to do all the drugs they want in the hopes they'll have a pang of conscience at being called ill instead of addicted? is there something else I'm missing? Again, simply having a rehab center doesn't help. I have never been to a hospital that doesn't have a drug clinic (personally) and I can count at least a dozen in Syracuse. If they don't believe they have a problem, unless you plan to force them into rehab, it doesn't help. Fueling their addiction would only make things worse. I don't know about you, but I don't know a single person who is more persuaded by being called ill than death, cancer and going to jail. Nothing is confidential. Remember companies have the right to drug test all of their employees. Or are you saying that I couldn't say if I wanted a cocaine addict working in my company or not? Also people who want to do drugs will still need those dealers, at least to get their foot in the door. I mean !@#$%^&* if mom, dad, sis and brother are all legally doing drugs and loving it mind you, why would you not? How do you ignore, no matter who you're buying from, that you would still steal? Even if you could get double the cocaine from the government, you would still spend just as much. Thats the problem with an addiction. I mean the whole concept is !@#$%^&*-backwards. First off if you want to label it an illness, you don't need to make it legal, cheaper and more accessible. You could take all of the money you'd be spending m!@#$%^&* producing and selling these drugs to create community programs, better rehabilitation, jobs for recovering addicts ect. There are very few real life situations where reverse psychology actually works. If you can show me one statistic that proves that legalizing and m!@#$%^&* producing drugs will lower the drug use in America then I would maybeconsider it. Not to mention with this being non-profit, if you have one center and one rehab in each city in the united states. Not to mention that larger cities would have multiple and larger facilities. And you had 3 people working in each facility. Say they averaged $50,000 (very low estimate for the training they would need). It would cost you $5,806,200,000 a year just to pay their salaries. If you paid them $75,000 it would cost $8,709,300,000 just to pay the employees (!@#$%^&*uming you're only open M-F 8-5). Now this isn't counting the manufacturing/producing (which would be a sliding scale based on supply and demand), shipping, managing, medical supplies, office supplies, building costs ect. You still have to pay for the marketing, promoting, regulations for driving and public activities on drugs and creating and maintaining your secure databases. I mean seriously, am I the only one who thinks this whole concept is rediculous? That is nothing more than an unfounded opinion. If any other person tried to use a similar statement to support anything on these forums, you'd have torn them apart.

I see why he's the ex-drug director. I've had this debate with sever many times and unfortunately, or fortunately, I will not repeat the argument here, but I will outline flaws in sever's logic. 1. lol? Yes people are going to pay a government tax (and fees) on something they already have a streamline to buy? People are going to just love to be taxed on yet another aspect of their lives. The only truth to that statement is that it would eliminate the crime aspect, because if you make anything legal, it's no longer illegal. 2. How would increasing the availability of drugs to people addicted to them help them in any way? Maybe I'm confused about this? 3. So you're saying you want to tax them and make them register as drug users? Companies will still have the ability to forbid their employees from using drugs, so now you've just given them a database to fire you on. Also renters and creditors WOULD be able to discriminate based on you being a registered drug user. Plus we all know how much people like to register their lives with the government. And they can't buy drugs legally until they've bought them illegally? Am I missing something there too? 4. From step 3 you said they can't get drugs, as a new user, unless they've previously been tested positive for them. So they would have to buy them from dealers. I would also like to see how buying drugs from the government after paying the taxes and regulation fees would be cheaper than a guy who sells it barely above cost? 5. Again that makes no sense. Drug dealers will not disappear. They will have more compe!@#$%^&*ive prices, you won't have to register and you don't have to be seen at the government drug clinic. There will always be a call for new users to drugs and for users who don't want to be governmentally registered. 6. The reasons why drug users commit crimes is to get money to BUY drugs. Why would simply changing the supplier change that? If you're addicted to cocaine and would mug someone for money to buy it from your dealer, why wouldn't you do the same to buy it from the government? I don't know many drug dealers that let you run a tab. Also the government would let you use cards, so there goes your credit. 7. Cleverly disguising what you classify drug use as is going to cause a m!@#$%^&* loss of appeal? That guy smoking pot is magically going to rethink his life because you say he has an illness? When we label alcoholism an illness, did that help any? People aren't dumb. If you label someone an addict do they have less of an urge to do a drug? If someone doesn't mind being labeled a criminal, they won't mind being labeled ill. The "coolness" factor only works with teenagers and they're even less likely to be effected by an "illness" because we're so fast to label every minor flaw in a child an "illness" today as it is. I could go for another 8 paragraphs but honestly it's not worth my time or yours. I do agree with that to a point. I have never used an illegal drug, or misused a legal drug, neither has my brother or fiance, but beyond that I'm not sure I personally know that many more people like me.

I'd have to say the Chevy malibu beats both the accord and camry in looks. Plus dare I say 2010 camaro ftw? Really its all a matter of preference, plus how long do you plan to have a car? I don't car what care you have, around 100k/10 years you'll go through the death roll, then past that it'll last till you drive it into the ground.

Any car you buy can last you 200K+ miles if it's taken care of. !@#$%^&* one of my moms friend has a hyundai accent with 190k on it and it runs like a champ. My brother elantra is over 120 with no major problems. The thing is how much money you're looking to spend. For the price you could get an Accord with 50k miles, you could get an American car with 20-30k miles on it. My parents have always bought American and because my dad takes care of the cars have never had a problem. !@#$%^&* I think my dad's escort has about 170k on it right now lol. My fiance drives a 98 lx accord with 80k miles on it and just about everything but the engine and transmission has gone on it. I personally drive American (07 Lincoln MKZ) and love it. I don't reccomend honda's unless you're reallying looking to spend extra money for the hype, because you'll find if you treat your car well, any car (with exceptions) will last. Also LOSA, for the price of a G35, you might as well get an A4 or C-class. I test drove a G35 and I don't see the hype.

I have to say I agree with astro here.

I still don't see how if you are born in America, regardless of where your ancestors came from, how you are simply not an American. Classifying yourself as anything else is simply self-segregation.

I guess it's too much to assume that a city official know basic astrology? In fact don't they teach you that in the 3rd or 4th grade?

I couldn't agree more with that report.

Agreed para, but that does not mean all military action = act of war. As I said sever, welcome to politics. If you can find me a non-corrupt politician then he's not a very good one. You just so happen to disagree with the politics. And 67 was yet again a result of a war. Not saying I support it one way or another, but land becomes a fluid thing when you go to war.

So a military venture to enforce sanction set forth by the U.N. is declaring war? It was mandated by the U.N. and the British agreed. No matter what you think of the U.N. at the time, politics is politics. I could go through why some of those conditions would not work, but I've not the time this afternoon. So I will attempt to later or tomorrow. Btw could you cite any of these sources? thx.

Your opinion, which you're en!@#$%^&*led to. "Any American strike on Iran, for example, could be the trigger for a Hizbollah attack on Israel. " Taken from your article. The Arabs are persecuting the Israeli's. I never said that I was against that, just that I don't believe that Israel should give in to the persecution. If they fight a war and Israel loses, well then too bad for Israel. Oh is that all? And of course that would just appease everyone. How wonderful. Idealism and realism rarely coincide. Note that Britian allowed those commonwealths and states to become their own countries (per the statute of Westminster in the 1930's I believe). At least in the case of the major ones. Just as they allowed Israel to become a country. What point were you trying to make?

1) Sever, ironically for what happened 60 years ago to be considered unacceptable, why is it that the Face of (Central) Europe and the middle east was a virtual Mr. Potato Head during the world wars through the 1950's? It is still acceptable today, we just do it in the back ground instead of in the fore front. You might consider it unacceptable and you are en!@#$%^&*led to that. 2) The British for all purposes "owned" the land. !@#$%^&* they could have kept it. Also the war did occur, and with help, the Israeli's won the war, and the right to the land. 3) Welcome to the world of politics. Grab a seat, stay a while. 4) I've never depicted them as racists, in fact I don't even use the term "Jews" I use the term Israeli's.

The difference is that women and men have different chromosomes, men with different skin hues are still men. (and women ect.) Why do you need to profile someone by their skin color? Ideally there are differences which will always need to be noted when comparing men and women. The fact that we are fundamentally different and yet the same. Why do we need a way to classify someone, whom by all biological rights is no different than the next person? Note how a female American is still just an American.

Not at all true Finland. Nor have I ever said such a thing. Not so good at that whole deductive reasoning thing are you? Never once did I say I support or don't support Palestinian action against Israel. I was pointing out that your concept of the "Right-way" was inferring that the Israeli's should just hand over their land. The only things I have said are I didn't support was Iran arming Hezbollah in a manner to try to blackmail us into not enforcing sanctions, that Hezbollah started the 2006 war and that the Israeli's have a problem with the Arabs hating them more than they hate us. I could honestly care less who occupies the land. If Palestine invaded Israel tomorrow and took it over, I'd say more power to Palestine.

Whats wrong with calling an American a plain old American? The whole concept of being called an "African-American" Segregates you from the rest of America.

[Offtopic] I say we kill everyone under a certain IQ level. This will help lower poverty rates and increase the damand for American workers. We can tackle population control, global warming, poverty, the budget, the economy and health care in one fell swoop. Veg 4 prez. [/Offtopic] I agree with Polix. I find it ironic that the people who are trying to !@#$%^&*imilate into America make every attempt to try to segregate themselves at every chance. We should do away with the term African-American. The only way you're a !@#$%^&* African-American is if you were born in Africa and became a dual citizen in America, regardless of hue of your skin.