I live in the ATL. Word on the street is the boy is/was still involved in that type of activity.

Uh..think about it. He assisted in selling an illegal drug (by the US government standards) vs putting his own life and many other peoples lives in danger, not once, not twice, but 3 fuggin times.

depends on whether Lewis knew what he was introducing the 2 guys for.


if he was REALLY brokering a drug deal then i would say that Lewis had the more serious charge.


Warfield = dangerously stupid

Lewis = criminal endeavor

now that's just nuts...

eric is the only decent cb we have at this point...

i'd much rather have him find a way to deal more effectively with his drinking problem (or drinking and driving problem to be more accurate) than get rid him...

atl? atlanta? american timber lobby? :shrug:

while i'm opposed to criminal penalties for drug use, cocaine is a dangerous drug (speaking from experience)...

but if it were legal, together with all other street drugs, it would definitely reduce and/or remove the criminal element associated with drug trafficking and use...

and that would be a good thing, imo...

If murdur were legal, it would definitely eliminate the criminal element associated with bumping off someone that teed you off.

what? mudur is not legal???

The point was not that murder and snorting cocaine are equivalent.

The point was that if you make something legal, that by definition removes the criminal element. So I always find the arguement that by making something legal you could remove the criminal element weak.

nothing... personally in an ideal world i think all drugs should be legal as long as they are advertised correctly(ie people know what they do)


but as of right now, they aren't legal so jmo Jamal lewis is prolly the more severe crime.

Not to mention, you're allowed to kill. Murder is illegal killing. You're not allowed to murder.

You're not in any way shape or form allowed to have any cocaine. No matter what you do with it.

not really true...


the use and then the frequent addiction effects all the people around the user and also effect society financially and in general safety.



a similiar arguement to the seat belt law

i do too

So your arguement takes the following valid logical form:

My premise is that cocaine harms only the user.

Therefore my conclusion is that cocaine should be legal.

Your conclusion follows logically from your premise. I don't agree with the premise, but at least it is a logical argument.

Gobo argues:

If cocaine were legal, you wouldn't have criminal element involved. Well duh. My arguement about murder is an example to show that his form argument is unvalid and pointless.

That would be true if you were self insured.

But you not wearing a seat belt would hurt me because you might sustain more severe injuries in a crash, thereby raising my insurance rates. Not a victemless crime.