Why is that? Its not like jail actually does anything to stop drug use - just makes them more efficient users, and possibly sellers. I'm fundamentally oppossed to mandatory sentences now, anyways, but this just doesn't seem to make sense. Why should a kid lighting up in his basement be sent to jail for five years? Is it going to do any good? Will it help him in anyway, or will it rend his life in a way that he might never recover from?
I think being a narrow minded fool should give you 10 years in jail. That'll keep them off the streets and the internet for at least a little while. edit: damn puedlfor, you beat me to the scene of the crime
OK...you've given your premise. Now give us the logical support for your position. Sending an honor student (for instance) to jail for 5 years for deciding to try pot will screw up what would have otherwise been a very productive life. As an aside, addiction is the only physical condition for which we impose jail time. Under that logic why don't we just lock up the schizophrenics who are begging on the street corners? I'll tell you why...because that's not the right thing to do. But for some quirky reason it IS the right thing to do in regards to addiction. I just don't follow.
They should just go ahead and legalize most of this stuff. You can smoke yourself to death, eat yourself to death, and drink yourself to death but aww hell if you smoke a joint you're in big trouble mister.
One of the many hypocritical aspects of the whole anti-drug thing...I will never, ever understand how alchohol and tobacco can be legal while maryjane is deemed too dangerous...despite all the well known data on addicition/disease/deaths etc. assosiated with the first two being so much greater than the latter... At risk of sounding like Bill Maher, well, without the nasal voice or implied superiority, I have to conclude that it comes down to money, lobbyists, and big business.
Nah, it's no good anymore because I've met you. My powers of sarcasm are useless once I've met someone face to face. At that point they become thinking, feeling human beings with real lives as opposed to some faceless name I've come to dread like, oh I don't know, TheFreak.
I couldn't agree more. I've never used mar1juana...because I never wanted to. I have many friends who did in college...and they certainly don't belong in prison. pssst....we just agreed.
Fantastic!!!! Wish I had known that earlier on. I would have come up with some BS reason to meet you face to face after my second post.
Under that rule, I'd be in jail for, um... let me use my ultra-scientific mathematical formula... oh, about a gazillion years.
Relax, dimsie, I wasn't attacking you. I was merely pointing out the irony that some magazine's that are considered 'magazines by men for men' are actually laid out by women.
I wonder how many politicians have the same opinion about drugs that we do, and yet cannot express them because it would be political suicide. Did Jesse Ventura ever espouse an opinion on the subject? I just can't believe that any rational human being who knows the truth about the drug war can say it's a good thing. I don't have a problem with companies doing drug testing, however. What I don't understand is if all drugs were legal, would it be illegal for companies to do drug testing?
The drug war has nothing to do with fighting illegal drugs. The drug war is 100% about the government making sure that the drugs you take are the one's they want you to take, namely alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs. The drug war must end immediately.
Hayes, sometimes you are so perversely contrary it makes my head hurt. I've never actually heard them called "magazines by men for men." They're just called "men's magazines." Why? Because their target audience is men. Sure they probably have women working at them. Just like there are men working at "women's magazines" such as Cosmo and Glamour. Why I'd even be willing to bet that there are some men who work at the Lifetime "Television for Women" channel. Does that fact make shows like "Mother May I Sleep With Danger" more appealing to men? Doubtful. Just like the fact that women work at Maxim doesn't make stories such as "Unleash her inner nympho!" any more enticing to women.
"Unleash Her Inner Nympho"???, "Stonner Chicks Are Sluttier"???....MAN, I have got to get a subscription to these mag's.
Yeah, I know. Sometimes I make MY head hurt. Some of my positions do seem to be from opposite ends of the spectrum, although I rarely outright contradict myself. I have heard them called that (specifically FHM and Maxim) to distinguish themselves from GQ and more glossy fashion magazine's run directly by Conde Naste et al. Actually my wife worked at Newsweek in Manhattan while in law school and busted me on it when I commented they were more geared to what men wanted to 'see/read' than GQ etc. Not saying that having women on staff makes it more likely to be read by women, just saying the perception that the coverage inside them is 'by men for men' is funny since what goes in them is sometimes decided by women.
Am I the only one that has noticed that Stevie Francis has upped his post word count but not his post quality quotient? Naw, probably not.. If I went to jail for 5 years for every drug I have ever done.... Well, lets just say...me and Dimsie would be gettin out at about the same time! I'm not gonna bother rehashing my views on pot, it's been well documented in other threads..but I will say that the only reason for the drug war is because law enforcement gets to keep and sell the assets that they confiscate. Also, if pot was legal, tobacco would take a huge hit in use..I guarantee that if I could smoke a joint legally, I could quit smoking cigs...
Based on the responses on this board, it would seem that changing the drug laws would hardly be suicide but in fact politically advantageous. Of course, this board is hardly representative of society at large. Still, I'd be very curious to learn the demographic information for those groups which adamantly support the current drug laws. My opinion is that the "War on Drugs" is an easy way for politicians to appear tough on crime. Any person who suggests that there are other ways to deal with drugs is immediately accused of being buddies with those nasty Columbian cartels (anyone else notice that the face of illegal drugs is always Hispanic?). Like too many issues, drugs have been turned into a "with us or against us" scenario.
