PDA

View Full Version : Two Questions


irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 02:34 PM
Question 1: Are you in favor of lowering or abolishing the drinking age?

Question 2: Are you in favor of legalizing marijuana?


I'm including a poll, but I think a written justification would be worthwhile for a good discussion.

Personally, I expect people to attribute my views to my age demographic. (I'm 20 and in college.) However, due to health reasons, I can't drink. Moreover, I've never smoked even a cigarette. Perhaps I should rephrase. I haven't smoked anything which the act of smoking involves inhaling. Thus, cigars are the exception I'm referring to.

Anyway, to the first question, I just don't understand the age limit. We are witnessing multiple generations of 18 year old age limit of drinking and not witnessing any side effects. If 18 is the age for an adult in all aspects of American culture, drinking should be no exceptions. Period.

As for question 2, I don't see any reason to continue our war on drugs. It would help depopulate prisons, save billions in legal fees, save billions of hours for both legal and enforcement establishment, and would allow treatment for some patients who need medical marijuana. I see no reason not to have this legalized.

banyon
08-12-2007, 02:40 PM
you forgot to check multiple options, so I just voted on Q1, but my answer on Q2 was yes also.

HolmeZz
08-12-2007, 02:40 PM
Nope and Nada.

chiefforlife
08-12-2007, 02:46 PM
No on Drinking age and Yes on MJ.

Mr Luzcious
08-12-2007, 02:49 PM
I'm in favor of the first (lowering to 18), not sure about the second, really.

wazu
08-12-2007, 02:49 PM
No on Drinking age and Yes on MJ.

Okay, so when a 20 year old soldier comes home from fighting in Iraq, possibly after suffering serious injury in combat, you believe he should be arrested if anybody buys him a beer.

BigMeatballDave
08-12-2007, 02:49 PM
Nice poll work. Next time you should consult Rain Man for assistance...

No on the drinking age.
Yes on MJ.

HolmeZz
08-12-2007, 02:50 PM
Nice poll work.

That's what she said.

BigMeatballDave
08-12-2007, 02:53 PM
That's what she said.
:)

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 03:10 PM
Yes, stupid multiple options. My bad.

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 03:10 PM
Nope and Nada.

That surprises me. Any reason why?

Logical
08-12-2007, 03:17 PM
No to lowering the drinking age, yes to legalizing MJ

HolmeZz
08-12-2007, 03:24 PM
I think lowering the drinking age doesn't effect the people you're trying to effect. 18-19-20 year olds will find ways to drink if they want to. No getting around that. But by lowering the drinking age, you're skewing the demographic even younger when it comes to alcohol. Instead of it being commonplace for 16-17 year olds to be drinking like it is now, maybe it starts being 12 and 13 year olds.

I don't care for marijuana(or alcohol for that matter) but I also wouldn't see the point in legalization. It's already readily accessible. It really is not hard to find a dealer. The penalties are also not all that severe for getting caught. I kinda look at it from the standpoint of someone who does smoke. I'd rather take my chances the way it is now than have it get legalized only to see the government tax the hell out of it.

go bowe
08-12-2007, 03:27 PM
No to lowering the drinking age, yes to legalizing MJwhat he said...

go bowe
08-12-2007, 03:45 PM
mj should be regulated and taxed like tobbaco and alcohol...

windfall revenues for governments at all levels, coupled with savings from no longer having to pay the enormous cost of the war on drugs and reducing the number of prisoners we have to support, by freeing all mj related convicts immediately...

decriminalizing mj would really jazz up our ecomony and even help pay for the iraq war (that would be a whole lot of joints and blunts, but we're up to the challenge)...

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 03:51 PM
I think lowering the drinking age doesn't effect the people you're trying to effect. 18-19-20 year olds will find ways to drink if they want to. No getting around that. But by lowering the drinking age, you're skewing the demographic even younger when it comes to alcohol. Instead of it being commonplace for 16-17 year olds to be drinking like it is now, maybe it starts being 12 and 13 year olds.

I don't care for marijuana(or alcohol for that matter) but I also wouldn't see the point in legalization. It's already readily accessible. It really is not hard to find a dealer. The penalties are also not all that severe for getting caught. I kinda look at it from the standpoint of someone who does smoke. I'd rather take my chances the way it is now than have it get legalized only to see the government tax the hell out of it.

I would argue that from an economical standpoint both are taxing us more than it should. More tax money would be made if it was legal for 18 year olds to drink because it would be more readily accessible. I will not deny that our underground/fraud/fake-id current circumvention system is not efficient. It is. However, the money saved from prosecuting, tracking, and the taxes made from increasing sales due to legalization seem to outweigh the downsides.

Same with marijuana.


However, I don't like, but can see, the argument from decreasing the age at which people drink. However, I think this is a misnomer. I don't think the age would fall like you suggest. Although, that's my opinion. Even if it does, is it necessarily a bad thing? 12 year olds to 15 year olds are usually under the supervision of their parents. At least, more so than the 16-18 generation. It seems to be that while on paper it looks like a good argument, I don't think the argument holds when it is used in reality or practically.

Pitt Gorilla
08-12-2007, 03:51 PM
mj should be regulated and taxed like tobbaco and alcohol...

windfall revenues for governments at all levels, coupled with savings from no longer having to pay the enormous cost of the war on drugs and reducing the number of prisoners we have to support, by freeing all mj related convicts immediately...

decriminalizing mj would really jazz up our ecomony and even help pay for the iraq war (that would be a whole lot of joints and blunts, but we're up to the challenge)...I'm guessing those with MJ enforcement positions and "conservatives" would lobby pretty heavily against decriminalization.

Hydrae
08-12-2007, 03:54 PM
I find it interesting that this kind of poll (no matter where I see them, not just a CP thing) always favors legalizing pot but we can't seem to do it in real life. I don't understand where the disconnect comes from. I suppose it is due to all the stoners that forget when the elections are. :)

BTW, I think it should be legalized under similar restrictions as we have for alcohol now. One of the reasons I voted against lowering the drinking age is due to the likelyhood of drunk driving by young people who have a hard enough time controlling the car while straight.

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 04:04 PM
I find it interesting that this kind of poll (no matter where I see them, not just a CP thing) always favors legalizing pot but we can't seem to do it in real life. I don't understand where the disconnect comes from. I suppose it is due to all the stoners that forget when the elections are. :)

BTW, I think it should be legalized under similar restrictions as we have for alcohol now. One of the reasons I voted against lowering the drinking age is due to the likelyhood of drunk driving by young people who have a hard enough time controlling the car while straight.


I might also add that I am a proponent - regardless of the drinking age being lowered - of tougher DUI enforcement and MUCH tougher penalties. Sorry, but if you drink, then drive, you should be arrested and prosecuted HARSLY. And that's coming from someone who is friend with a 2 DUI person and friend with people who routinely drink and drive - even knowing they shouldn't.

HolmeZz
08-12-2007, 04:07 PM
I would argue that from an economical standpoint both are taxing us more than it should. More tax money would be made if it was legal for 18 year olds to drink because it would be more readily accessible. I will not deny that our underground/fraud/fake-id current circumvention system is not efficient. It is. However, the money saved from prosecuting, tracking, and the taxes made from increasing sales due to legalization seem to outweigh the downsides.

Same with marijuana.

I understand the money side of it, but I'm not in favor of compromising anything ethically just so the government can make a few extra bucks. I think those would both be the motives to lowering the drinking age and legalizing marijuana. I think it's different if your argument is about the morality of both issues.

Even if it does, is it necessarily a bad thing? 12 year olds to 15 year olds are usually under the supervision of their parents.

Nah, I don't think I'll ever be in favor of 5th and 6th graders drinking. You're also opening a whole new can of worms. You're assigning a level of maturity to youth that doesn't deserve/warrant it. You'd basically be treating them like adults and with that would be consequences.

A similar argument could be made against lowering the age of consent, which I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of. :p

Hydrae
08-12-2007, 04:12 PM
I might also add that I am a proponent - regardless of the drinking age being lowered - of tougher DUI enforcement and MUCH tougher penalties. Sorry, but if you drink, then drive, you should be arrested and prosecuted HARSLY. And that's coming from someone who is friend with a 2 DUI person and friend with people who routinely drink and drive - even knowing they shouldn't.

I am in favor of developing cars that drive themselves. Then it doesn't matter what mental state the driver is in. Or whether they are talking on the cell phone, texting, putting on makeup or any number of other things that distract drivers today.

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 04:13 PM
I understand the money side of it, but I'm not in favor of compromising anything ethically just so the government can make a few extra bucks. I think those would both be the motives to lowering the drinking age and legalizing marijuana. I think it's different if your argument is about the morality of both issues.

What exactly is your moral argument? And I would also argue that people are saving money here too. It's not just going to the government.



Nah, I don't think I'll ever be in favor of 5th and 6th graders drinking. You're also opening a whole new can of worms. You're assigning a level of maturity to youth that doesn't deserve/warrant it. You'd basically be treating them like adults and with that would be consequences.

A similar argument could be made against lowering the age of consent, which I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of. :p

Again, when you try to play the age card you're trying to paint the picture that kids of those ages ARE going to drink AND that anyone who opposes it is, well, deranged. Who would want a sixth grader to drink? No one. At least not me. At that point, though, isn't it the fault of the parents?

I just think at some point responsibility must default to the parents. Currently, none does. With anything.

I don't think you see that young a demographic drinking in Europe.

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 04:14 PM
I am in favor of developing cars that drive themselves. Then it doesn't matter what mental state the driver is in. Or whether they are talking on the cell phone, texting, putting on makeup or any number of other things that distract drivers today.

I don't think anyone's NOT in favor of that. :p

HolmeZz
08-12-2007, 04:34 PM
What exactly is your moral argument? And I would also argue that people are saving money here too. It's not just going to the government.

I really only have a moral argument about the drinking age. I really don't have any strong feelings about the marijuana issue, but if it's been illegal because of morality, then it shouldn't be legalized just because we want the money from it. Like I said, that's compromising ethics for money and I'm really not a fan when my government does that. If someone's arguing it from a morality standpoint, I have no problem listening to that.

Again, when you try to play the age card you're trying to paint the picture that kids of those ages ARE going to drink AND that anyone who opposes it is, well, deranged.

I'm of the opinion that if you drop the drinking age, you're going to be skewing younger and younger. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose that thinking either.
Who would want a sixth grader to drink? No one. At least not me.

I really wasn't accusing you of that. You just said "would that really be bad?" in response to the idea that 12-13 year olds would start drinking.

At that point, though, isn't it the fault of the parents?

I'd love to be able to trust parents to raise their children correctly. Unfortunately I really don't feel that way about most.

I just think at some point responsibility must default to the parents. Currently, none does. With anything.

I agree. So why do you want to get even more liberal with the laws? :p You'd likely be making it more difficult to be a good parent.

I don't think you see that young a demographic drinking in Europe.

I don't think our youth are much like the youths over in Europe. I think we're much more immature on the whole. Parental responsibility probably plays a role so I think that's something we can agree on.

Hydrae
08-12-2007, 04:48 PM
I don't think anyone's NOT in favor of that. :p


Actually, my wife is against the idea. She doesn't want to give up the ability to drive the car herself. I think it is just control issues. :p

Good thing my wife doesn't frequent this place!

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 04:54 PM
I really only have a moral argument about the drinking age. I really don't have any strong feelings about the marijuana issue, but if it's been illegal because of morality, then it shouldn't be legalized just because we want the money from it. Like I said, that's compromising ethics for money and I'm really not a fan when my government does that. If someone's arguing it from a morality standpoint, I have no problem listening to that.

Yes, I will never argue ethics taking a back seat to money but I don't see the moral aspect here. There's a disconnect there. What am I missing?

And, if there is a moral standpoint, you can make a moral out of any situation or circumstance. Thus, it seems, that argument, no matter how wrong, would be the winner. That seems a bit, well, shallow - if that's even the word I'm looking for.


I'm of the opinion that if you drop the drinking age, you're going to be skewing younger and younger. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose that thinking either.

Yes, but I think the age on paper is lower (younger) than it would be in practicality.


I really wasn't accusing you of that. You just said "would that really be bad?" in response to the idea that 12-13 year olds would start drinking.

My point was, though horribly articulated, is that enough reason - or any reason at all - for the age to be 21. Isn't that also an argument for 18 being too young for the "adult age"? I mean if there are problems with having 18 be the age of ALL adult activities, then isn't that therefore a problem of having 18 be the legal age?



I'd love to be able to trust parents to raise their children correctly. Unfortunately I really don't feel that way about most.

While I agree 100000%, the line must stop somewhere. Just as the line for when a child becomes responsible for his own activities...


I agree. So why do you want to get even more liberal with the laws? :p You'd likely be making it more difficult to be a good parent.

Actually, I think I'd be making it no less or more difficult to be a good parent. Rather, it would force the parents to actually parent.


I don't think our youth are much like the youths over in Europe. I think we're much more immature on the whole. Parental responsibility probably plays a role so I think that's something we can agree on.

Agreed. But you seem reluctant to push ANY responsibility - actually I think accountability is better here - on the parents. Enforcement and penalties on the parents is easy for sixth graders drinking....

irishjayhawk
08-12-2007, 04:55 PM
Actually, my wife is against the idea. She doesn't want to give up the ability to drive the car herself. I think it is just control issues. :p

Good thing my wife doesn't frequent this place!

I think that's part of it. Though, I think she might need to understand that manual control ALWAYS has to be an option. Apparently, she hasn't seen enough I-Robot.

HolmeZz
08-12-2007, 05:06 PM
I have no problem pushing accountability on parents. I just don't think lowering the drinking age(and IMO increasing the likelihood of younger drinkers) is the way to get it done.

And I have no moral objections to marijuana. I'm simply arguing from the standpoint that it's illegal now. I wouldn't care if it was legalized if the country came to a moral consensus on it, but I believe the money side of legalization is why most lawmakers would be interested in it. Because of that(and the reasons I gave about it being accessible and cheaper) I'm really not much of a backer of the cause. At least I think there are more pressing issues worth caring about.

Saggysack
08-13-2007, 06:16 AM
Yes to both. You can die for your country at 18 but can't have a beer. Stupidity at work.

Yes to MJ, even though I don't think you need to legalize it to balance the positive and negative impacts it has on society.

Nightwish
08-13-2007, 09:17 AM
No to lowering the drinking age, yes to legalizing marijuana.

Nightwish
08-13-2007, 09:20 AM
Okay, so when a 20 year old soldier comes home from fighting in Iraq, possibly after suffering serious injury in combat, you believe he should be arrested if anybody buys him a beer.
I voted the same way he did, but I don't have very strong feelings on the drinking age thing. However, as long as it is illegal, then a returning Iraq war veteran with war wounds should be treated exactly the same under the law as anyone else. Their service does not exempt them from obeying the law.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 09:34 AM
I voted the same way he did, but I don't have very strong feelings on the drinking age thing. However, as long as it is illegal, then a returning Iraq war veteran with war wounds should be treated exactly the same under the law as anyone else. Their service does not exempt them from obeying the law.

Why? If they can fight, they should be able to drink...

Saggysack
08-13-2007, 09:46 AM
I voted the same way he did, but I don't have very strong feelings on the drinking age thing. However, as long as it is illegal, then a returning Iraq war veteran with war wounds should be treated exactly the same under the law as anyone else. Their service does not exempt them from obeying the law.

I'm not sure about Adam, but I believe if we are willing to trust a 18yr carrying a automatic firearm, hand grenades, C4, etc. in service of their country, allowing them to drink a beer seems like a very benign matter to me.

I do agree that their service shouldn't put them above the law with the present law in place. Having said that, military service does bring quite a bit more risks than your average college student. Shouldn't we allow military members the full pleasures of the very freedom that they are serving to uphold?

Nightwish
08-13-2007, 03:33 PM
Why? If they can fight, they should be able to drink...
It's not about what the act is, it's about whether the act is against the law. If it's legal, they should be allowed, if it isn't, they shouldn't, plain and simple. If they legally lower the drinking age, that's another matter, but I'd say that among the underage drinkers out there, there are more who are irresponsible with it than those who are responsible with it, and I am not in favor of lowering the drinking age across the board just to satisfy a few soldiers who are below the drinking age. Drinking is fun, but it isn't a necessity, and when it does become a necessity, then it becomes a sickness.

Nightwish
08-13-2007, 03:34 PM
I do agree that their service shouldn't put them above the law with the present law in place. Having said that, military service does bring quite a bit more risks than your average college student. Shouldn't we allow military members the full pleasures of the very freedom that they are serving to uphold?
And thereby undermine the strict discipline that they are trained to embrace and uphold, that very same discipline that they rely on to be intact when they go into the theater of war?

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 04:27 PM
It's not about what the act is, it's about whether the act is against the law. If it's legal, they should be allowed, if it isn't, they shouldn't, plain and simple. If they legally lower the drinking age, that's another matter, but I'd say that among the underage drinkers out there, there are more who are irresponsible with it than those who are responsible with it, and I am not in favor of lowering the drinking age across the board just to satisfy a few soldiers who are below the drinking age. Drinking is fun, but it isn't a necessity, and when it does become a necessity, then it becomes a sickness.

Oh, I think we're crossing signals here. I am saying it's a double standard for the law to decree 18 as the legal age of an adult while then picking and choosing what exactly that means. For example, as it stands now, one can fight with weapons yet not sip alcohol. That's a double standard that should go away.

However, if it isn't lowered, then yes, I would agree treat them the same. But that wasn't the question I asked in the OP.

StcChief
08-13-2007, 04:51 PM
Do you understand the difference between a radio button and check box ?

No on both

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 05:28 PM
Do you understand the difference between a radio button and check box ?

No on both

I'm glad you can read. I addressed my error earlier. I merely forgot to check the multiple options box, which for most polls you don't need.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 06:03 PM
I don't care for marijuana(or alcohol for that matter) but I also wouldn't see the point in legalization. It's already readily accessible. It really is not hard to find a dealer. The penalties are also not all that severe for getting caught. I kinda look at it from the standpoint of someone who does smoke. I'd rather take my chances the way it is now than have it get legalized only to see the government tax the hell out of it.



Well, then take your favorite hobby and make it illegal. As long as the penalties aren't too stiff and jailtime not too severe, it shouldn't affect how you feel about it. That's perhaps the DUMBEST attempt at logic I've ever heard. I'd rather pay money for it than go to jail, not get jobs, and be persecuted for life. I'm stone sober now because I hate alcohol and am tired of being paranoid that someone is gonna get me for partaking in a substance much more safe than the ones that are already legal.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 06:09 PM
I really only have a moral argument about the drinking age. I really don't have any strong feelings about the marijuana issue, but if it's been illegal because of morality, then it shouldn't be legalized just because we want the money from it.



That's not why it's illegal at all. It was made illegal by a printer who wanted to corner a market, fear mongering, and racism. Do a simple google search and get educated about it. It was never a MORAL issue. If it was, alcohol abolishment would have never been reversed. I won't even start on why the government wants it illegal because it requires less work and generates similar revenue. Revenue generation, whether it's taxing smokers, or taxing every citizen to pay for their housing. It all adds up the same.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 06:33 PM
No to #1 and No to #2.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 06:35 PM
No to #1 and No to #2.



How come for #2? I hear it's a great way to combat the mental fatigue of schizaphrenia.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 06:40 PM
How come for #2? I hear it's a great way to combat the mental fatigue of schizaphrenia (schizophrenia).

Must be a word from the experienced.

No to #2 because I've seen too many lives wasted by it's use.

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 06:40 PM
How come for #2? I hear it's a great way to combat the mental fatigue of schizaphrenia.

It's pretty simple. - ahem, shut your mouth - is a "Social" (Big Government nanny-state regarding "moral" issues) Conservative. In short, it means he thinks he knows more about how you should live your life than you do, and wants the government to make it so.

I haven't smoked in many a year, but I think the continuing idiocy of the war on drugs just proves many people don't bother studying history. Especially prohibition in the '30s.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 06:41 PM
It's pretty simple. - ahem, shut your mouth - is a "Social" (Big Government nanny-state regarding "moral" issues) Conservative. In short, it means he thinks he knows more about how you should live your life than you do, and wants the government to make it so.

Just goes to show you what part of your ass is showing. This has nothing to do with moral issues nor the government. Try using your brain instead of your ass when you post.

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 06:42 PM
Just goes to show you what part of your ass is showing. This has nothing to do with moral issues nor the government. Try using your brain instead of your ass when you post.


But it does have everything to do with thinking you know better than someone else how they should live their life. nlm

Got it. Legalization of a currently scheduled narcotic isn't a government issue. ROFL LMAO

a1na2
08-13-2007, 06:46 PM
Got it. Legalization of a currently scheduled narcotic isn't a government issue. ROFL LMAO

I guess your reading skills are somewhat in the challenged zone. I've seen lives ruined by people that live to smoke, their families have suffered, but I'm really sure that you have no idea as to what harm can be done to a family.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 06:46 PM
Must be a word from the experienced.

No to #2 because I've seen too many lives wasted by it's use.


A waste in your eyes or a waste in theirs? That was an opinion. Who's is it?

a1na2
08-13-2007, 06:47 PM
But it does have everything to do with thinking you know better than someone else how they should live their life. nlm



I guess you must be the better person to choose how they live their life. How f*cking ironic!

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 06:51 PM
I guess you must be the better person to choose how they live their life. How f*cking ironic!


How is it there in left field?

a1na2
08-13-2007, 06:52 PM
A waste in your eyes or a waste in theirs? That was an opinion. Who's is it?

I would think a waste in the eyes of the morticians.

I would also think it would be in the eyes of most of those left behind.

Those that have lost their jobs might even realize sometime in the future that is was a waste.

Your opinion is that they can do what they please, how about murder? Should they legalize that too?

a1na2
08-13-2007, 06:53 PM
How is it there in left field?

I'm just fine living in the drug free zone.

You can go back to your dopers convention now.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 07:01 PM
I would think a waste in the eyes of the morticians.

I would also think it would be in the eyes of most of those left behind.

Those that have lost their jobs might even realize sometime in the future that is was a waste.

Your opinion is that they can do what they please, how about murder? Should they legalize that too?



Morticians? That's retarded. Pot? Seriously, pot? Let's not compare smoking pot to killing people, it's another retarded statement. You obviously have an emotional investment into this subject but try and be realistic. As far as the dopers convention goes, I don't use. I could pass a drug test, I used for years, and don't consider the time spent as a waste. It's a matter of freedom, something you may not care about as long as everything goes your way.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 07:16 PM
Morticians? That's retarded. Pot? Seriously, pot? Let's not compare smoking pot to killing people, it's another retarded statement. You obviously have an emotional investment into this subject but try and be realistic. As far as the dopers convention goes, I don't use. I could pass a drug test, I used for years, and don't consider the time spent as a waste. It's a matter of freedom, something you may not care about as long as everything goes your way.

Your opinion is biased as you are a user.

Three young girls, all under 18, heading out to a party. Two already drunk so the other girl driving impaired with THC. The driver totals the vehicle killing the other two girls. I guess that the pot had nothing to do with her inability to drive.

So now you are a member of NA?

Something is not realistic in your eyes because you have an inability to admit that your past behavior was irresponsible.

Keep believing that if you smoke rope it is OK and nobody is ever damaged by the "evil heathen weed marijuana!"

Mr. Flopnuts
08-13-2007, 07:22 PM
Your opinion is biased as you are a user.

Three young girls, all under 18, heading out to a party. Two already drunk so the other girl driving impaired with THC. The driver totals the vehicle killing the other two girls. I guess that the pot had nothing to do with her inability to drive.

So now you are a member of NA?

Something is not realistic in your eyes because you have an inability to admit that your past behavior was irresponsible.

Keep believing that if you smoke rope it is OK and nobody is ever damaged by the "evil heathen weed marijuana!"



More hypothetical analysis? Or is that your emotional involvement? If so, it's a shame you didn't teach them to be more responsible at that age. If not, it's speculation and THC being in her system doesn't mean she was high at the time. It just means she'd been high in the last 30 days.

Your personal attacks mean zero to me. My life has not been affected in a negative way due to the fact that I smoked weed. I am not surprised by your behavior though, you seem to throw temper tantrums when people don't share your ideals.

People's lives are ruined all the time by pot. Where did I ever say otherwise? A lack of drive and ambition has its way of ruining whatever potential people who start using ever had in the first place. This whole debate came from you saying people you knew had their lives ruined. I said it was an opinion and asked who's it was. Instead of answering honestly, you began a personal attack which I may add is slanderous. I should consider suing you. LMAO

Hydrae
08-13-2007, 07:33 PM
Your opinion is biased as you are a user.

Three young girls, all under 18, heading out to a party. Two already drunk so the other girl driving impaired with THC. The driver totals the vehicle killing the other two girls. I guess that the pot had nothing to do with her inability to drive.

So now you are a member of NA?

Something is not realistic in your eyes because you have an inability to admit that your past behavior was irresponsible.

Keep believing that if you smoke rope it is OK and nobody is ever damaged by the "evil heathen weed marijuana!"

If it were legalized in a similar fashion to alcohol then none of them should have been messed up in any manner due to their age.

I am sorry for the loss that this must have been for you but I fail to see how it being legal for over 21 years olds would have had any impact on that situation.

Oh, and I must say that WAY more people have been hurt due to alcohol but we have no problem with it being legal.

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 07:37 PM
I guess you must be the better person to choose how they live their life. How f*cking ironic!

The difference is I want to give them the choice to decide how to live their life.

You want the government to decide for them.

How f*cking ironic, coming from a so-called "conservative". ROFL

Your example of the kids is sad, but the same tragedy happens many times a year with alcohol. Or do you think the government should protect all of us from ourselves and outlaw that too? :rolleyes:

It's a matter of freedom, something you may not care about as long as everything goes your way.

Pretty much. You must have ran across - ahem, shut your mouth - before.

Maybe I should dig up the thread where that "conservative" proponent of freedom wanted the government to protect people from sex toys. After all, some of those fake dongs are big and BLACK!

Again, as with pot, I couldn't care less for myself. However, it's a load of crap when a so-called "conservative" wants the government to make decisions like that for people.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 07:47 PM
The difference is I want to give them the choice to decide how to live their life.

You want the government to decide for them.

How f*cking ironic, coming from a so-called "conservative". ROFL

Your example of the kids is sad, but the same tragedy happens many times a year with alcohol. Or do you think the government should protect all of us from ourselves and outlaw that too? :rolleyes:

Who says I want the government to decide for them? The law is on the books and does not need to be removed. Should the government decide that we should also take murder off the books?

You are the one calling me a conservative. I'm pretty much wide open to facts, there just aren't many floating around lately, only opinion from the lesser educated.

Last I heard kids under 21 are not allowed to drink alcohol. That same tragedy happens all over the world, but in this case the driver was impaired by pot and should not have been driving. Once people can handle their vices and not be stupid then you can remove the laws. Until then the laws are there to protect the stupid and to protect the innocent from the stupid.

Going further, should LSD be legalized? Quaalude's? How about Heroin or crack cocaine? Regular cocaine? Ecstasy? Or any other of the illegal narcotics? A line was drawn sometime back and I don't see any justification to move the line.

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 07:51 PM
Going further, should LSD be legalized? Quaalude's? How about Heroin or crack cocaine? Regular cocaine? Ecstasy? Or any other of the illegal narcotics? A line was drawn sometime back and I don't see any justification to move the line.

IMO, yes, and heavily taxed with draconian penalties for harming another or allowing another to come to harm while under the influence.

You may want the government to play nanny. I don't. And you've claimed to be a "conservative" under a number of 'nyms. It's OK not wanting to be considered a conservative with this current one, as it's pretty clear your support for a nanny state mentality (government should protect us from ourselves) shows you are not. :shrug:

a1na2
08-13-2007, 07:53 PM
If it were legalized in a similar fashion to alcohol then none of them should have been messed up in any manner due to their age.

I am sorry for the loss that this must have been for you but I fail to see how it being legal for over 21 years olds would have had any impact on that situation.

Oh, and I must say that WAY more people have been hurt due to alcohol but we have no problem with it being legal.

WE? I have a problem with alcohol being legal, but too many wheels have the say about making it illegal. (seems it was tried once before and it was eventually repealed.) There isn't enough backing to legalize pot, just won't happen.

|Zach|
08-13-2007, 07:54 PM
Imagine that, Tom being fake again.

To think...he was actually parading around here like he was a conservative.

Hilarious.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 07:55 PM
IMO, yes, and heavily taxed with draconian penalties for harming another or allowing another to come to harm while under the influence.

You may want the government to play nanny. I don't. :shrug:

So you would rather that the government abolish all laws just so they can't tell you what is legal and what is not?

Your argument is absurd.

Taxing pot and other drugs? I'm sure that more people would start using home batches of meth and dying due to poisoning than anyone that could afford to buy the drugs after taxes. Good move.

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 07:56 PM
Imagine that, Tom being fake again.

To think...he was actually parading around here like he was a conservative.

Hilarious.


IMO, anybody who thinks it's the governments job to protect people from making stupid decisions regarding their own lives is certainly not a conservative.

I'm sure Cochise, Chief4ever, patteeu, Mr. Kotter and Co. are breathing a sigh of relief knowing their side isn't represented by this clown.

|Zach|
08-13-2007, 07:58 PM
IMO, anybody who thinks it's the governments job to protect people from making stupid decisions regarding their own lives is certainly not a conservative.

I'm sure Cochise, Chief4ever, patteeu, Mr. Kotter and Co. are breathing a sigh of relief knowing their side isn't represented by this clown.
For sure.

He does know what is in his best interests though. If you can't think for yourself or have no self discipline it isn't a bad situation for him.

Hydrae
08-13-2007, 08:00 PM
So you would rather that the government abolish all laws just so they can't tell you what is legal and what is not?

Your argument is absurd.

Taxing pot and other drugs? I'm sure that more people would start using home batches of meth and dying due to poisoning than anyone that could afford to buy the drugs after taxes. Good move.


Making it legal will mean more people will do it in a underground manner???????????

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:05 PM
IMO, anybody who thinks it's the governments job to protect people from making stupid decisions regarding their own lives is certainly not a conservative.

I'm sure Cochise, Chief4ever, patteeu, Mr. Kotter and Co. are breathing a sigh of relief knowing their side isn't represented by this clown.

It's not the governments job to protect us, it's their job to enforce the laws of the land. You are talking about abolishing all laws so we won't have to be protected.

The founding fathers set the law making machine in motion. It sounds like you don't want to live in the manner they foresaw for the country. My recommendation is that you either learn to live by the laws that we have or find a country with a better freedom than we have here.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:08 PM
Making it legal will mean more people will do it in a underground manner???????????

If you could cook up a batch for $100 or buy a couple of hits for $100 which way would you take? If you legalize the recreational drugs as you want there will still be "bootleggers" to bypass the taxes imposed on those drugs.

I may not be fully right on the matter but legalizing drugs as everyone is wanting would be a giant step towards the end of western civilization in my opinion.

Hydrae
08-13-2007, 08:14 PM
If you could cook up a batch for $100 or buy a couple of hits for $100 which way would you take? If you legalize the recreational drugs as you want there will still be "bootleggers" to bypass the taxes imposed on those drugs.

I may not be fully right on the matter but legalizing drugs as everyone is wanting would be a giant step towards the end of western civilization in my opinion.


Wow, just wow. I think you need to take a bong hit and chill. It would do good for your anger issues.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 08:15 PM
If you could cook up a batch for $100 or buy a couple of hits for $100 which way would you take? If you legalize the recreational drugs as you want there will still be "bootleggers" to bypass the taxes imposed on those drugs.

I may not be fully right on the matter but legalizing drugs as everyone is wanting would be a giant step towards the end of western civilization in my opinion.

ROFL

The end of western civilization?

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 08:22 PM
So you would rather that the government abolish all laws just so they can't tell you what is legal and what is not?


Regarding PERSONAL issues like drinking, using recreational narcotics, and sex toys, etc? You're goddamn right I don't want the government telling me how to live my life. Or, just as important, telling you or anyone else how to live theirs.

If you want to act like a moron, and pretend I'm advocating getting rid of all laws....well, it won't surprise anyone who has been posting here since the last time you crawled out of your septic tank.

Taxing pot and other drugs? I'm sure that more people would start using home batches of meth and dying due to poisoning than anyone that could afford to buy the drugs after taxes. Good move


As for going to all that effort to avoid a few taxes... :rolleyes:. You must be under the mistaken assumption that pot actually motivates people.

Yeah, why try to raise tax revenues when we can continue pissing away billions of dollars on a futile war on drugs. Study the history of the Eighteenth amendment sometime, wunderkind.

I have a problem with alcohol being legal, but too many wheels have the say about making it illegal. (seems it was tried once before and it was eventually repealed.)
Again: Study the history of the Eighteenth amendment sometime, wunderkind.

Wow, now we are in serious tinfoil hat territory. It's a big bad conspiracy of big wheels that are keeping us from making alcohol illegal again? That is truly an unparalleled level of dipshittery, even from you.

It's quite simple. Too simple for you apparently. The majority of Americans want to make that decision for themselves. They don't want some Father Coughlin wannabe like you getting a nanny in an Uncle Sam suit to make that decision for them.
.

Mr. Laz
08-13-2007, 08:23 PM
Nice poll work. Next time you should consult Rain Man for assistance...

No on the drinking age.
Yes on MJ.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:24 PM
Wow, just wow. I think you need to take a bong hit and chill. It would do good for your anger issues.

What in the world gives you the impression that I have any anger over this issue whatsoever?

I don't use drugs, I seldom drink a beer.

If you think anyone on this board has even raised my blood pressure by a point you are very wrong. Your opinions are just as good, or bad, as mine. You see, one of the things we still have on our side is freedom to think and feel the way we wish about any issue.

Unless, of course, you are Tom Cash.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:25 PM
ROFL

The end of western civilization?

Can't read tonight? A step towards...

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 08:26 PM
What in the world gives you the impression that I have any anger over this issue whatsoever?

I don't use drugs, I seldom drink a beer.

If you think anyone on this board has even raised my blood pressure by a point you are very wrong. Your opinions are just as good, or bad, as mine. You see, one of the things we still have on our side is freedom to think and feel the way we wish about any issue.

Unless, of course, you are - ahem, shut your mouth -.

ROFL

Wow...great job of putting yourself on the cross there.

Have a nice night, and enjoy thinking of youself as a wee little victim.

Poor little - ahem, shut your mouth -. You made your bed. Lie in it. Or as they say in the main forum....

"Stay Down, Bitch!"

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 08:27 PM
Can't read tonight? A step towards...

Yes, and my question still stands. The end of western civilization?

This, the legalization of drugs, will cause the downfall of Western Civilization. It won't be war, Global Warming, our turn towards fascism and the ilk, or economic downfall?

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:27 PM
Regarding PERSONAL issues like drinking, using recreational narcotics, and sex toys, etc? You're goddamn right I don't want the government telling me how to live my life. Or, just as important, telling you or anyone else how to live theirs.

If you want to act like a moron, and pretend I'm advocating getting rid of all laws....well, it won't surprise anyone who has been posting here since the last time you crawled out of your septic tank.


As for going to all that effort to avoid a few taxes... :rolleyes:. You must be under the mistaken assumption that pot actually motivates people.

Yeah, why try to raise tax revenues when we can continue pissing away billions of dollars on a futile war on drugs. Study the history of the Eighteenth amendment sometime, wunderkind.


Again: Study the history of the Eighteenth amendment sometime, wunderkind.

Wow, now we are in serious tinfoil hat territory. It's a big bad conspiracy of big wheels that are keeping us from making alcohol illegal again? That is truly an unparalleled level of dipshittery, even from you.

It's quite simple. Too simple for you apparently. The majority of Americans want to make that decision for themselves. They don't want some Father Coughlin wannabe like you getting a nanny in an Uncle Sam suit to make that decision for them.



.


Some one posted something about taking a hit from a bong and chilling. It sounds like you are over the edge tonight. Take a downer or two and a couple of hits of Jack Daniels.

Do you honestly believe the shit you are posting? That has got to be the most selfish attitude towards the U.S. way of life I've ever heard.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:29 PM
Yes, and my question still stands. The end of western civilization?

This, the legalization of drugs, will cause the downfall of Western Civilization. It won't be war, Global Warming, our turn towards fascism and the ilk, or economic downfall?

Once again you missed the total point. A STEP TOWARDS THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION!!

There are many issues that will be involved in the changing of our way of life, if you can only see that one comment you need to get a few more hits from your bong as well.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:30 PM
ROFL

Wow...great job of putting yourself on the cross there.

Have a nice night, and enjoy thinking of youself as a wee little victim.

All of you jackasses tend to throw it out rather freely.

I think you need to get a life and find out what it's all about.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 08:30 PM
Once again you missed the total point. A STEP TOWARDS THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION!!

There are many issues that will be involved in the changing of our way of life, if you can only see that one comment you need to get a few more hits from your bong as well.


How is it even CLOSE to a "step" towards the end of western civilization? That's my question that you can't or won't answer.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:32 PM
How is it even CLOSE to a "step" towards the end of western civilization? That's my question that you can't or won't answer.

Are you really so thick that you need someone to explain it to you?

I'll opt for I can't explain it to you, there is no way you will even attempt to understand the consequences of legalization of "recreational" drugs.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 08:35 PM
Are you really so thick that you need someone to explain it to you?

I'll opt for I can't explain it to you, there is no way you will even attempt to understand the consequences of legalization of "recreational" drugs.

The food industry's economy will explode.
Couches will get more use.

Mr. Laz
08-13-2007, 08:40 PM
Are you really so thick that you need someone to explain it to you?

I'll opt for I can't explain it to you, there is no way you will even attempt to understand the consequences of legalization of "recreational" drugs.
the question wasn't "all" recreational drugs ..... was it?



if the government shouldn't outlaw guns the shouldn't outlaw drugs.

a1na2
08-13-2007, 08:50 PM
the question wasn't "all" recreational drugs ..... was it?



if the government shouldn't outlaw guns the shouldn't outlaw drugs.

Guns were around when the country was formed, recreational drugs were not. The basic set of laws were created back then, the country has seen fit, for what ever reason, to add laws to fit society. I think anyone that has a problem with the current batch of restrictions on drug use need to seek answers elsewhere, they don't reside here.

Mr. Laz
08-13-2007, 09:04 PM
Guns were around when the country was formed, recreational drugs were not. The basic set of laws were created back then, the country has seen fit, for what ever reason, to add laws to fit society. I think anyone that has a problem with the current batch of restrictions on drug use need to seek answers elsewhere, they don't reside here.

so the validity of the law depends on when it was created?


:spock:

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 09:54 PM
Guns were around when the country was formed, recreational drugs were not. The basic set of laws were created back then, the country has seen fit, for what ever reason, to add laws to fit society. I think anyone that has a problem with the current batch of restrictions on drug use need to seek answers elsewhere, they don't reside here.

Yeah, weed wasn't present back then.....

a1na2
08-13-2007, 10:41 PM
Yeah, weed wasn't present back then.....

I'm sure that you have first hand knowledge of the presence and usage by the founding fathers.

Talk about diverting from the factual to the fictional!

a1na2
08-13-2007, 10:44 PM
so the validity of the law depends on when it was created?



The validity of the law depends fully upon whether you are one of the few that feels that you are above any particular law. It seems there are more of your types here than originally thought.

You guys pick and choose what is valid and not valid by what means? If it suits your wants and desires?

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 11:02 PM
I'm sure that you have first hand knowledge of the presence and usage by the founding fathers.

Talk about diverting from the factual to the fictional!

Yet you claimed it didn't exist, first. Hmmm.

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 11:03 PM
The validity of the law depends fully upon whether you are one of the few that feels that you are above any particular law. It seems there are more of your types here than originally thought.

You guys pick and choose what is valid and not valid by what means? If it suits your wants and desires?

Can someone decipher this? I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what this has to do with anything - the least of which is the actual question he's addressing?

Saggysack
08-14-2007, 12:36 AM
Guns were around when the country was formed, recreational drugs were not. The basic set of laws were created back then, the country has seen fit, for what ever reason, to add laws to fit society. I think anyone that has a problem with the current batch of restrictions on drug use need to seek answers elsewhere, they don't reside here.

Recreational drugs weren't around when our country was formed? Nah, alcohol could never be considered recreational. Marijuana has been used for 8000 years. Opium has been used for thousands of years as well. Mushrooms the same too. There is even ancient hebrew text that states Jesus used marijuana in annointing oil, large quantities of it. I think what we don't need is, nutcases like yourself spreading lies and disinformation for you to feel confident in your own beliefs.

irishjayhawk
08-14-2007, 12:48 AM
Recreational drugs weren't around when our country was formed? Nah, alcohol could never be considered recreational. Marijuana has been used for 8000 years. Opium has been used for thousands of years as well. Mushrooms the same too. There is even ancient hebrew text that states Jesus used marijuana in annointing oil, large quantities of it. I think what we don't need is, nutcases like yourself spreading lies and disinformation for you to feel confident in your own beliefs.

YOU DON'T HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T THERE!
:cuss:


Oh wait, neither was he..... :rolleyes:

Mr. Flopnuts
08-14-2007, 12:49 AM
Recreational drugs weren't around when our country was formed? Nah, alcohol could never be considered recreational. Marijuana has been used for 8000 years. Opium has been used for thousands of years as well. Mushrooms the same too. There is even ancient hebrew text that states Jesus used marijuana in annointing oil, large quantities of it. I think what we don't need is, nutcases like yourself spreading lies and disinformation for you to feel confident in your own beliefs.



And thas da troof.

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 12:53 AM
...There is even ancient hebrew text that states Jesus used marijuana in annointing oil, large quantities of it...

There's an ancient Hebrew text that gives Jesus's recipe for a marijuana-laden annointing oil?

This is great stuff. Please, tell me more.

|Zach|
08-14-2007, 01:21 AM
Classic thread.

Saggysack
08-14-2007, 01:28 AM
There's an ancient Hebrew text that gives Jesus's recipe for a marijuana-laden annointing oil?

This is great stuff. Please, tell me more.

:shake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Benet

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 01:30 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Benet

That's it? The ancient Hebrew text is the Old Testament, and a stoned out Polish professor thought the evidence was there?

Wow.

Thanks a little.

Saggysack
08-14-2007, 05:23 AM
That's it? The ancient Hebrew text is the Old Testament, and a stoned out Polish professor thought the evidence was there?

Wow.

Thanks a little.

ROFL

You're acting as if you are offended. I'm sorry that Jesus may have partaken in a substance you deem morally unacceptable. But hey, look on the bright side, I'm sure those that thought the earth was flat were offended when they found out it wasn't too.

Uh, yeah, the Old Testament is ancient.

a1na2
08-14-2007, 06:19 AM
ROFL

You're acting as if you are offended. I'm sorry that Jesus may have partaken in a substance you deem morally unacceptable. But hey, look on the bright side, I'm sure those that thought the earth was flat were offended when they found out it wasn't too.

Uh, yeah, the Old Testament is ancient.

Which part of the story are you telling informs us that Jesus lit up a joint?

So you, and your, wiki opinion are stating that they used the anointing oil as a recreational drug eh? Now I can honestly say I've heard it all. That goes beyond common sense and strays into the world of totally wacked out.

I'm also impressed by your interpretation of the wiki story where they use phrases like "may have" more than once. It's all an opinion as well as pretty much non-factual.

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 08:31 AM
ROFL

You're acting as if you are offended. I'm sorry that Jesus may have partaken in a substance you deem morally unacceptable. But hey, look on the bright side, I'm sure those that thought the earth was flat were offended when they found out it wasn't too.

Uh, yeah, the Old Testament is ancient.

Not offended at all. Just unimpressed.

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 08:34 AM
...There is even ancient hebrew text...
Twit.

Saggysack
08-14-2007, 08:57 AM
Twit.

****

Oh, hold on I forgot the period. ****.

According to Benet's research, cannabis appears in ancient Hebrew texts spelled with the Hebrew letters: “Kuph, Nun, Hé * Bet, Shin, Mem,” translated into western alphabetic forms as ¹aneh-bosm, kaneh-bosm or kineboisin.

Saggysack
08-14-2007, 09:05 AM
Which part of the story are you telling informs us that Jesus lit up a joint?

So you, and your, wiki opinion are stating that they used the anointing oil as a recreational drug eh? Now I can honestly say I've heard it all. That goes beyond common sense and strays into the world of totally wacked out.

I'm also impressed by your interpretation of the wiki story where they use phrases like "may have" more than once. It's all an opinion as well as pretty much non-factual.

It isn't a wiki opinion. Where did I say it was used recreationally? Oh that's right, I didn't. You have never heard of the sprirtual use of cannabis? You don't know that almost every major religion at one time has used cannabis, some even still do today?

irishjayhawk
08-14-2007, 10:07 AM
Which part of the story are you telling informs us that Jesus lit up a joint?

So you, and your, wiki opinion are stating that they used the anointing oil as a recreational drug eh? Now I can honestly say I've heard it all. That goes beyond common sense and strays into the world of totally wacked out.

I'm also impressed by your interpretation of the wiki story where they use phrases like "may have" more than once. It's all an opinion as well as pretty much non-factual.

At least admit that these drugs - not all, mind you - have been around long before we outlawed them.

a1na2
08-14-2007, 04:07 PM
At least admit that these drugs - not all, mind you - have been around long before we outlawed them.

Care to be more specific? These drugs? The U.S. outlawed the drugs when? in the '30's? That means that it was at least here before then. The premise was that it is illegal as a recreational drug in the U.S. One of the posters brought up that Jesus used cannabis when he was on the planet, he inferred that it was used in ointments, which could be, but his intent was to say that it was used in much the same manner as the pot heads here want it legalized for use. The ointment would be most likely used as a medical treatment or religious ceremony.

I think there are people that feel our laws are unjust regarding drugs. I say tough shit, it's the law. Do those same people complain about seatbelt laws? Again, tough shit.

What gets me is that there are so many people that are willing to break the laws they feel are unjust. We can only hope that those same people aren't standing in the wrong place when someone that feels that murder laws are unjust.

a1na2
08-14-2007, 04:12 PM
It isn't a wiki opinion. Where did I say it was used recreationally ? Oh that's right, I didn't. You have never heard of the spiritual use of cannabis? You don't know that almost every major religion at one time has used cannabis, some even still do today?

Your comment inferred recreational use. What I've heard of and the path of this argument seems to have bypassed your mental capability.

Try using spell checker once in a while.

irishjayhawk
08-14-2007, 04:39 PM
Care to be more specific? These drugs? The U.S. outlawed the drugs when? in the '30's? That means that it was at least here before then. The premise was that it is illegal as a recreational drug in the U.S. One of the posters brought up that Jesus used cannabis when he was on the planet, he inferred that it was used in ointments, which could be, but his intent was to say that it was used in much the same manner as the pot heads here want it legalized for use. The ointment would be most likely used as a medical treatment or religious ceremony.

I think there are people that feel our laws are unjust regarding drugs. I say tough shit, it's the law. Do those same people complain about seatbelt laws? Again, tough shit.

What gets me is that there are so many people that are willing to break the laws they feel are unjust. We can only hope that those same people aren't standing in the wrong place when someone that feels that murder laws are unjust.

Do you even know the question of the thread? It has nothing to do with unjust laws and abiding by them....

banyon
08-14-2007, 05:24 PM
Your comment inferred recreational use. What I've heard of and the path of this argument seems to have bypassed your mental capability.

Try using spell checker once in a while.

His comments don't infer anything, they imply. If you are going to be a total douche about minor spelling errors, at least learn to use the words in your criticisms correctly.

a1na2
08-14-2007, 08:44 PM
Do you even know the question of the thread? It has nothing to do with unjust laws and abiding by them....

Try reading the thread, I answered the questions.