Medicinal purpose?

[Muskrat]

What about a historical standpoint? I would make the argument that the government has really overstepped its' bounds in doing something like outlawing pot in hte first place. I mean, it was made illegal as part of a ploy to deport mexican immigrants(found uncons!@#$%^&*utional). And for 4/5 of the time this country has been a country, no politician would have believed that the cons!@#$%^&*ution gave them the right to outlaw it. !@#$%^&*, if it hadn't been for the !@#$%^&*ed depression, we'd all be smokin' weed everyday.

[NBVegita]

Note that we were not the first country to make it illegal, and the majority of the world has it illegal to this day.

[SeVeR]

Then you don't understand much about psychology and the effect of perceived weakness.

 

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.

Most people already perceive drugs as a weakness so its hardly a change in traditional thought. In my opinion alot of people turn to drugs through:

1. Curiousity

2. Peer-Pressure

3. Rebellion

Making it "legal medicine" bought in "clinics" by "ill" people would go along way to de-romanticising drug-use that is currently illegal and therefore a spark for the curious and rebellious. In the same way people don't say "i want to try getting syphalis this week" you can turn it into a disease prompting pity rather than what it currently is.

 

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."

They have to volunteer to get help! In this case the help center will be located in the same place as the drug-outlet, making it easy to get help if they want it. The whole point of this plan is to cut the rate of new users and cut the rate of crime. Existing users either die off or get the help that's right in their face everytime they go to buy drugs.

 

Help is derived from rehabilitation programs, not making it more cost efficient to ruin your life.

And how exactly does cost efficiency change anything? They're still ruining their life. The help can never be forced on them, is this what you're suggesting? The best we can do is stick the help center in the same place they have to go to get a fix so that they see that option as regularly as possible. I see you criticising this idea, but what alternative are you offering. I know there is no perfect way to eliminate drug-use, to me this is the best way to control it and reduce it. You can't force people to get help, i would have thought your "experiencing life as a person and witnessing lives spent as a person" would have taught you that.

 

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.

But they get it anyway. These people are ODs waiting to happen, if they go all crazy and OD quicker because the cost is cut down then i don't care. Their deaths will go as further warning that this is an illness... it will even be seen as suicidal in that way, the ultimate weakness.

 

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.

This isn't an age limit though, we haven't spent our whole lives waiting to take drugs knowing that it'll be ok to do it when we reach the right age. Not only that but a large number of families are drinking beer on the couch and sipping wine at the dinner table. Its an awful comparison to make because we are brought up knowing there is nothing wrong with it through our parent's example. Even if your parents take drugs and there is an age limit when you can "finally" do it too... you wouldn't! Because you'd see the detrimnetal effects just like those kids who have abusive drunk parents see the negative effects of drink!

 

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.

What? How exactly does it "hinge" on that? I know full well that people don't abuse the laws alot of the time, but you seem to miss the point that there are reasons that go far beyond legality. We all have to understand the rules that are given to us, we have to ask why. This is why Christians seem completely at odds with the Bible, they have no means to understand where the 10 commandments comes from, they're just there, sent from God. They seek to interpret the Bible to their own will as a result by attempting to seek answers from God and getting the echo of their own personal desires instead. We don't have a switch based on legality. I could have smoked before 16 but didn't, yet i chose to drink since i saw my parents doing it without any adverse effects. We aren't switches.

 

Could there be other reasons to change? Sure. Late for work, emergency.. anything.

The point is that people will change because of the conditioning gone through based on all the other speed limits that they've ever seen. If you see a 40 MPH sign you immediately drive at that speed and you'll do the same for higher speeds. Secondly the peer pressure will be in effect - If everyone else is going this fast then i really should too, i don't want to hold everyone up. Thirdly there is no "stage" i.e. going from 40-60MPH, you either take drugs or you don't. With drugs there is no conditioning to start taking them if it becomes illegal since its a separate subject by itelf - for a suitable analogy you'd have to say that all the speed limits on all the roads would be taken away, by doing so you'd be legalising speeding, not redrawing the limits.

 

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.

You open up clinics - making drug-use appear as a sickness. You make it legal - de-romanticising its part in rebellion and removing the curiousity of something that is "taboo" enough to be banned. The publicity coming from this change in legislation would then push these issues into the forefront of our minds, it would be all over the news "Drug Clinics selling drugs legally to users". The dealers would go out of business over night and we'd be transferring their business over to the government who can offer every single one of them rehabilitation. At the same time as reducing crime significantly.

[»Ducky]

Most people already perceive drugs as a weakness so its hardly a change in traditional thought. In my opinion alot of people turn to drugs through:

1. Curiousity

2. Peer-Pressure

3. Rebellion

Making it "legal medicine" bought in "clinics" by "ill" people would go along way to de-romanticising drug-use that is currently illegal and therefore a spark for the curious and rebellious. In the same way people don't say "i want to try getting syphalis this week" you can turn it into a disease prompting pity rather than what it currently is.

While I do agree with the reasons you listed as the means behind drug use, I cannot foresee ever in my lifetime or the one even further after that where people are going to refer to MDMA or Crack as a "legal medicine" for "sick" people.

 

Sickness implies that you are looking for a cure. All you are doing is getting cheap easily accessable tools to allow you to be !@#$%^&*ed up.

 

They have to volunteer to get help! In this case the help center will be located in the same place as the drug-outlet, making it easy to get help if they want it. The whole point of this plan is to cut the rate of new users and cut the rate of crime. Existing users either die off or get the help that's right in their face everytime they go to buy drugs.

 

People can volunteer to get help right now today if they desired.

And help is easily found free EVERYWHERE.

People who do not get help do not want it. Don't let them fool you otherwise. When a person says "Well, I'd only quit if" They are lying to themselves right there.

 

And how exactly does cost efficiency change anything? They're still ruining their life. The help can never be forced on them, is this what you're suggesting? The best we can do is stick the help center in the same place they have to go to get a fix so that they see that option as regularly as possible. I see you criticising this idea, but what alternative are you offering. I know there is no perfect way to eliminate drug-use, to me this is the best way to control it and reduce it. You can't force people to get help, i would have thought your "experiencing life as a person and witnessing lives spent as a person" would have taught you that.

Force words into my mouth much?

Where did I say we are forcing people to do anything.

 

As I just previously typed, help is everywhere for those that desire it.

If you can't understand a drug addict being able to buy a higher quan!@#$%^&*y of a drug for the same price they pay now as a bad thing, there's no possible way for you to grasp the entire situation.

Addiction is often dictated by price. A heroin junky doesn't blast 4 bags because she hasn't built that specific tolerance (if she's sitting at 3), but because she can't afford that fourth one.

 

But they get it anyway. These people are ODs waiting to happen, if they go all crazy and OD quicker because the cost is cut down then i don't care. Their deaths will go as further warning that this is an illness... it will even be seen as suicidal in that way, the ultimate weakness.

They don't always get it anyway, there are millions who don't do things because they don't have the money to. Your suggesting ever junky is a criminal for the drug. This is not true.

An illness infers that there should be a cure to make them whole again.

You're just letting them die.

 

This isn't an age limit though, we haven't spent our whole lives waiting to take drugs knowing that it'll be ok to do it when we reach the right age. Not only that but a large number of families are drinking beer on the couch and sipping wine at the dinner table. Its an awful comparison to make because we are brought up knowing there is nothing wrong with it through our parent's example. Even if your parents take drugs and there is an age limit when you can "finally" do it too... you wouldn't! Because you'd see the detrimnetal effects just like those kids who have abusive drunk parents see the negative effects of drink!

Tack another bad analogy up.

There would be an age limit, we both can agree here.

Now, what makes you think that there would be no desired waiting period?

 

Some children do look at abusive alcoholics and decide not to drink.

What do they do though? They either not drink at all, or think they can suffice with not drinking as much.

Being abusive while drinking is not the effect of drinking. It's the effect of the persons personality while drinking. Boy A is not going to be an abusive !@#$%^&*hole like Dad A even if they were to drink the same amounts.

Good chance of Boy A being an !@#$%^&*hole? Sure, but it's not a certainty.

 

Why do you think new people drink and the next generation doesn't just quit.

 

Let's apply this to an actual addictive substance, Cocaine.

Boy A is still going to do it because he feels he can handle the effects unlike Dad A. What happens when Boy A tries it from curiousity thinking he can handle it, but ends up just like his old man in the end?

 

It will happen exactly like that.

 

What? How exactly does it "hinge" on that? I know full well that people don't abuse the laws alot of the time, but you seem to miss the point that there are reasons that go far beyond legality. We all have to understand the rules that are given to us, we have to ask why. This is why Christians seem completely at odds with the Bible, they have no means to understand where the 10 commandments comes from, they're just there, sent from God. They seek to interpret the Bible to their own will as a result by attempting to seek answers from God and getting the echo of their own personal desires instead. We don't have a switch based on legality. I could have smoked before 16 but didn't, yet i chose to drink since i saw my parents doing it without any adverse effects. We aren't switches.

I have no idea what you are trying to say at all here.

"People don't just decide one day to start drinking when they've had years to do it beforehand even they they can do it legally now."

Yes, yes they do.

I'm not using words like all or none, I'm using some.

It's not a some in the negative column though, these are some people being added to the quan!@#$%^&*y of users.

 

The point is that people will change because of the conditioning gone through based on all the other speed limits that they've ever seen. If you see a 40 MPH sign you immediately drive at that speed and you'll do the same for higher speeds.

lol? Drive much mate?

Secondly the peer pressure will be in effect - If everyone else is going this fast then i really should too, i don't want to hold everyone up.

I've not seen this much myself at all. It's a pretty sad reality when you drive faster than you want to because of someone else. If someone is pushing behind me, I don't hit the gas, I continue on my way at the speed I desire.

 

Thirdly there is no "stage" i.e. going from 40-60MPH, you either take drugs or you don't. With drugs there is no conditioning to start taking them if it becomes illegal since its a separate subject by itelf - for a suitable analogy you'd have to say that all the speed limits on all the roads would be taken away, by doing so you'd be legalising speeding, not redrawing the limits.

There are stages.

You aren't legalizing drugs completely, there will be stages.

"Ok, heroin is legal now, we need some deciding factors to dictate what the legal dose is."

 

My analogy was fine.

 

You open up clinics - making drug-use appear as a sickness. You make it legal - de-romanticising its part in rebellion and removing the curiousity of something that is "taboo" enough to be banned. The publicity coming from this change in legislation would then push these issues into the forefront of our minds, it would be all over the news "Drug Clinics selling drugs legally to users". The dealers would go out of business over night and we'd be transferring their business over to the government who can offer every single one of them rehabilitation. At the same time as reducing crime significantly.

No, the gaps are still there as are the odd logical stems you seem to be creating.

 

Call it a clinic, every drug user is going to call it a walmart.

Curiousity is over the drugs effect, not necessarily the taboo manner.

The governement ALREADY OFFERS REHABILITATION.

The crime rate to aquire drugs goes down while the crime rate while on drugs increases because people get more messed up cheaper.

 

 

I understand what your end goal is, but your idea isn't a solution to stop drug use. It's not even something that would benefit us to the point where it justifies the time and money spent setting it all up IMO.

 

It's an idea that I simply don't foresee happening in my lifetime. While there's merit, it's not as logical as you wish to dictate.

[SeVeR]

I cannot foresee ever in my lifetime or the one even further after that where people are going to refer to MDMA or Crack as a "legal medicine" for "sick" people.

Then you and me disagree. What do you call methodone?

 

Sickness implies that you are looking for a cure. All you are doing is getting cheap easily accessable tools to allow you to be !@#$%^&*ed up.

Whats the difference between getting it cheap or expensive? You're still !@#$%^&*ed up after. When its cheap you remove the need for the users to get money through petty crime. They're gonna force their habit to its limits anyway, its just a matter of who has to suffer.

 

People can volunteer to get help right now today if they desired.

And help is easily found free EVERYWHERE.

I've never seen a drug clinic in my life. It takes some sort of effort on the part of the user to seek out that help. By legally selling the drug you can stick the help center in exactly the same place meaning that the user walks past it every single day and knows precisely where it is.

 

If you can't understand a drug addict being able to buy a higher quan!@#$%^&*y of a drug for the same price they pay now as a bad thing, there's no possible way for you to grasp the entire situation.

Even drug-users have a limit. If that limit is death then the suicidal nature of their actions will echo that drug-use is an illness, the ultimate weakness is to commit suicide.

 

Addiction is often dictated by price. A heroin junky doesn't blast 4 bags because she hasn't built that specific tolerance (if she's sitting at 3), but because she can't afford that fourth one.

Then let them die if they OD. Should i give a !@#$%^&*? I want to remove all the crime that comes with drug-use, all the drug-dealers, and i want to stick the help-center right in their faces when they come to buy drugs so they have no excuses. If they then OD and die because they can't control their habit then they're a lost cause. She can't afford the 4th one because she wasn't able to steal enough.

 

An illness infers that there should be a cure to make them whole again.

You're just letting them die.

If you refuse treatment, you die. Simple. There is a cure if they want it. I don't want all the other crime that comes from the drug industry to be a result of us being sympathetic to people who refuse to be treated.

 

Why do you think new people drink and the next generation doesn't just quit.

Exactly, we follow our parents examples when we see that it doesn't affect them much. Thankfuly we haven't all got drug-using parents which is why its a ridiculous analogy.

 

Let's apply this to an actual addictive substance, Cocaine.

Boy A is still going to do it because he feels he can handle the effects unlike Dad A. What happens when Boy A tries it from curiousity thinking he can handle it, but ends up just like his old man in the end? It will happen exactly like that.

It already is happening exactly like that. What were you expecting, a miracle cure?

 

The point is that people will change because of the conditioning gone through based on all the other speed limits that they've ever seen. If you see a 40 MPH sign you immediately drive at that speed and you'll do the same for higher speeds.

 

lol? Drive much mate?

Yes i drive alot. I assume you don't... or drive at a nice "safe" speed in a 70MPH limit? The conditioning is there because you assume the government is setting the speed limit that is popularly deemed safe for that road.

 

I've not seen this much myself at all. It's a pretty sad reality when you drive faster than you want to because of someone else. If someone is pushing behind me, I don't hit the gas, I continue on my way at the speed I desire.

Its sad and it happens but only when a large percentage of people want to be going faster than you and are stuck. If you're going 40MPH in a 60MPH limit and there are 10 cars behind you, some maybe honking their horns, then i think that kind of pressure might even get to you. This will happen because alot of people already want to be allowed to drive faster, again completely different from drugs where we have very specific reasons that have nothing to do with legality!

 

You aren't legalizing drugs completely, there will be stages.

Heroin is completely illegal, it would be made completely legal. No stages. Its not like changing from 40MPH to 60MPH. You're can still legally drive, there is still a legal limit, only the specifics of the law are changing. I'm talking about removing a law completely, a suitable comparison would be to remove speed limits altogether.

 

Call it a clinic, every drug user is going to call it a walmart.

I don't give a crap what the existing users think about it.

 

Curiousity is over the drugs effect, not necessarily the taboo manner.

Yea, both. The effect of the drug will be there for all to see, actually that would be good publicity: broadcasting the deaths from drug-use.

 

The governement ALREADY OFFERS REHABILITATION.

Wha-duh? Ya think?!?! Christ.. you already know what my answer is.

 

The crime rate to aquire drugs goes down while the crime rate while on drugs increases because people get more messed up cheaper.

Wait, so crime rate drops because they no longer need the extra money to buy more drugs, because now they're getting those drugs from a clinic.... and you're saying that the crime rate while on those drugs will increase? That would imply that they're getting more !@#$%^&*ed up than they were when they were burglarizing for the extra cash that they now don't need. What makes you think that getting MORE !@#$%^&*ed up will cause MORE crime? From my experience, the more !@#$%^&*ed up you are the less ability you have to do just about anything!

[NBVegita]

you know reading this has given me the best laugh I've had in a while. Making all of the drugs legal so that people will buy lots of them really cheap of the government and od. Best idea of the century! rofl.

 

First off, people would still buy it from dealers because of quality. Yeah miss "i don't have 2 penny's to rub together and am on welfare" will buy that heroin from the government, but cocaine and heroin are rich drugs. Think of most of the od's you've heard of from actors, actresses and musicians in the past 3 decades. And I'll give you a hint, it wasn't alcohol or pot. The rich people, who already have the money to do this !@#$%^&* would still do it through the dealers that they can get the best stuff regardless of price. Now I'm not saying that those drugs are limited to just rich society, as many many poor people also use them.

 

And for clinics? Rofl again. Go to any hospital across the country and tell them you need help, and they will either have, or locate for you a rehabilitation center. The problem with drug users is they never think they have a problem. If you shoot up three times a day, you don't think you have a problem, its just "how you get down". "Sure, I could quit any time I want" I believe is a smokers golden line. I don't believe the problem is not being able to get help, its actually knowing/wanting to get help.

 

And making it legal and having the government call it an illness would...wait...have no effect on the public opinion! Well everything his a minor effect. If the government tomorrow launched a campaign saying that drinking alcohol is an illness, and opened hundereds of rehabilitation centers, I don't think there would be any stock holders running to sell their stock of Anheiser Bush.

 

And who do you think has to foot the bill for all of those people you'd let od? When they od, they get rushed to the hospital. If they die, or if they don't, the low end spectrum, which would be the majority of your client base, don't have the money to pay for that, who pays for that? The government does. And guess who pays the government that money that they're giving that hospital for helping that junkie? Oh wait, its your mom, your dad, and most of you who would be paying for it.

 

No thanks I'll pass

[Muskrat]

lol I'm sure the government funding for this sort of thing is pocket change for the defense department.... but then again, when the defense department spends certain powerful interest groups benefit so.... I guess you're right.

[Altec]

The fact that one hit from a joint can dissorient you more than one full bottle of beer.

 

I gotta buy some better !@#$%^&*...

[SeVeR]

First off, people would still buy it from dealers because of quality.

Does one Colombian druglord grow his crop different from another? Doubt it. Its the same "!@#$%^&*" and any after-harvesting modifications can easily be catered for.

 

The drug-dealers will go out of business because they will lose all their customers. Unless of course they try to compete with a m!@#$%^&*-purchaser of narcotics selling at zero profit, which is impossible. Druggies aren't snobs when it comes to buying drugs, they want a fix and if there is any "special taste" (which i really do doubt) it can be catered for.

 

And for clinics? Rofl again. Go to any hospital across the country and tell them you need help, and they will either have, or locate for you a rehabilitation center.

Do you see me disagreeing with you? Except now they have to go to a hospital, grab a map or get directions then find this rehabilitation centre? NBV, ever used laziness as an excuse not to do something? If you put a help centre in a place where you know they have to p!@#$%^&* every single day you remove the excuse.

 

If the government tomorrow launched a campaign saying that drinking alcohol is an illness, and opened hundereds of rehabilitation centers

Ever heard of a pub? I know they're more difficult to find in America... but common!

 

And who do you think has to foot the bill for all of those people you'd let od? When they od, they get rushed to the hospital.

Foot the bill? They already OD on what they can buy illegally, a few more will OD but do you have any idea what the drain is already on the economy because of the drug-trade?

 

Best idea of the century! rofl.

Just open your mind and get past the:

"Alcohol = BAD.

Smoking = BAD.

Pot = BAD."

 

Mmmkay?

[NBVegita]

I drink socially as is my right. I don't do drugs because they're not my choice. Same with smoking. If you want to do them, thats your business. My belief is that another, or multiple bad substances, which they are, should not be induced legally into our society that already has a substance abuse problem, with legal and non legal drugs. Notice how you have to be 18 just to buy sudafed in our country. At least in this state.

 

It just a fact that they're all bad. Making drugs legal would do nothing but royally !@#$%^&* up our country. I mean !@#$%^&* drinking and driving is one of, if not the leading cause of death. Now you m!@#$%^&* produce a ton of other mind altering drugs...do you plan to ban driving all together? At least if you have drugs on you now you'll think twice bout driving !@#$%^&*ed up cause if you get pulled over thats jail time. But !@#$%^&* if its legal cmon now. I could go on for hours on how bad it would be but its just not worth the time. Instead I restate my thesis:

 

Marijuanna, or drugs in general for that matter, will never be made legal unless there is evidence, that cannot be reputably disputed, that there would be a major positive influence to our country to do so.

 

And even if you get the positive proven, then all someone has to do is reputably produce a major negative and there it goes again.

 

Unless the positive activly out weighs the negative.

[SeVeR]

I never said to make DUI legal. You seem to be operating on the idea that lots more people will take mind-altering drugs if they are made legal. If thats the case then probably DUI would become more of a problem. Would you start taking them, would Ducky, would I? Who are these mindless switches out there that you speak of?

[NBVegita]

The same mindless switches that fall to peer pressure. Perfect example my brother. The first alcoholic beverage he had in his entire life (minus a sip of champagne on new years) was at my house a month before he turned 21. And even then he was petrified that someone would find out and he'd get in trouble. Since turning 21, he's become quite the drinker.

 

A lot of guys I grew up with, the only reason why they only drank or did pot was either A) they couldn't find anything harder or Once they finally found it, they didn't have the money to dish out for it. Now you make it accessable and cheap. How do you not expect the use of it to increase? The reason why pot is such a huge drug in the country, and with our youth, is because everyone knows a guy who sells pot and its cheap. If cocaine was cheap and easy to come by, that would be the drug of america. So lets not make any of that happen.

[SeVeR]

Dealing drugs would still be illegal so one person selling those drugs on to another person at a party would still be illegal practice. But i see what you mean, the relaxation of laws might make people take any existing laws less seriously. A smear campaign is not guaranteed to work. I still believe there are many positives to do with this method. And personally i see the weak-minded fools who might start taking hard drugs as expendible anyway, although another part of me says that we need those people so that the rest of us can stand on their shoulders at some point. However with the dealers gone the rate of new users may actually go down, so i don't know if thats something that would get worse. I see a decrease in crime and an elimination of dealers as a big plus.

[Muskrat]

!@#$%^&* the Whigs!

[NBVegita]

Now there is a productive contribution.

[AstroProdigy]

NBV your brother is a strange little man if he was terrified of drinking before he was 21. The very vast majority of people think drinking is nothing and think the 21 age law is bullcrap. In fact it makes it more fun to drink when it's illegal. People enjoy breaking the law when it's stupid.

[NBVegita]

So its strange for someone to not want to break the law...but its fun for people to break the law?

[AstroProdigy]

The fact is that very few people take the drinking law seriously. They won't drink in front of a cop, but they'll only find it more of a rush to drink in private or at a party because people think doing something illegal is cool. People who are terrified enough not to touch the stuff until they're 21 are a small minority.

[NBVegita]

I think it might include more people than you might think.

[X`terrania]

Totally, whenever I am depressed I just smoke a quick one and I become supaaaaaaaaaaaaaah calm.

[AstroProdigy]

I come from a nerd high school which is the place with the most people who wouldn't drink underage. It's not more than I think unless we're talking about the Bible Belt.

[Aileron]

Oh long time no post here...

 

Back to an old point...drug smuggling and human smuggling are related, though it is indirect.

 

Truth be told, any and all security systems in the world can be breached. The only variable is how expensive it is to breach said system, though the costs are not-necessarily monatary. Generally, a system will be breached by somebody if the rewards outweigh the costs. However, once a system is breached, it is also breached to other criminals for free...the second criminal merely has to follow the path paved by the first.

 

Illegal immigrants are poor...it is not worth it to pave a smuggling route for them. However, there is tons of money to be made smuggling drugs. The high profits make it worthwhile for smugglers to expand their routes. Once those routes are paved, human smugglers learn them from the drug smugglers and use the routes to smuggle their less-profitable product.

 

The stretch I was referring to was the degree of problems illegal immigrants cause...they magnify existing problems, but the stated issues weren't caused by illegal immigration.

 

 

 

 

I waited until I was 21 actually, and my father had tried to start a brewery and had dozens of cases of beer in the basement after the business failed. I could've easily taken one or two, or a hundred or so bottles out without anyone noticing....too bad I'm a math geek.

 

I came from a pretty "Bible Belt" like area and EVERYONE (except me) drank before 21. Being religious and being a prick are two entirely seperate things and too many people confuse them.

[SeVeR]

Oh there's a little bit of evidence behind every !@#$%^&*umption Ail.

[NBVegita]

well hopefully

[Aileron]

No, not always. Sometimes people lie, but the lie is popular enough that lots of people believe it. That's how urban legends are created.