and you think more nanny state laws solves that problem?
5% of black men in prison
- Thread starter serioustrade
- Start date
and you think more nanny state laws solves that problem?
I've been nothing but civil to you in our exchanges here on this thread, maybe next time you can make better arguments and won't have to resort to cursing , name calling and ad hominem responses.
I agree, and i also think that people who kill someone while drunk and driving, or driving on any other drugs should get a much harsher sentence, we shouldnt give those people a pass, if a person makes the choice to go out and do drugs, then they kill someone, they have to be held fully responsible for those actions.....
With that said, people who do crack, are going to do crack whether its illegal or not, so we can continue fighting it at a great expense, and creating a violent under ground market, or we can accept the fact that some people are just crack heads.....
The people who can do crack casually will not get hooked, and the people like "tyrone biggums" as depicted by Dave Chapelle in the video below are going to do it regardless.
Whether or not a drug is legal is never going to slow a person down who is so hooked on the drug they would give someone a BJ just to get some.....
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-6xENiFq0B4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
With that said, people who do crack, are going to do crack whether its illegal or not, so we can continue fighting it at a great expense, and creating a violent under ground market, or we can accept the fact that some people are just crack heads.....
The people who can do crack casually will not get hooked, and the people like "tyrone biggums" as depicted by Dave Chapelle in the video below are going to do it regardless.
Whether or not a drug is legal is never going to slow a person down who is so hooked on the drug they would give someone a BJ just to get some.....
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-6xENiFq0B4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You set the tone with your hypocrisy and not being able to own up to it. And with your arrogant ignorance.
You'd do well to make better arguments yourself. Your naive "justifications" for legalizing drugs only reflect a rose-colored, intellectually bankrupt view of the upside and show you have no clue about the downside of alcohol, let alone the potential downside of legalizing everything else.
You'd do well to make better arguments yourself. Your naive "justifications" for legalizing drugs only reflect a rose-colored, intellectually bankrupt view of the upside and show you have no clue about the downside of alcohol, let alone the potential downside of legalizing everything else.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
I've been nothing but civil to you in our exchanges here on this thread, maybe next time you can make better arguments and won't have to resort to cursing , name calling and ad hominem responses.
I have to trade tomorrow and am finishing up my simulations so only have time for this one point for now. The penalties need to be harsher for just drinking and driving whether you kill someone or not. Because those who finally end up killing someone invariably have done it repeatedly before. And wrist slaps only encourage it. So unless people are held accountable for their actions (and they're not nowadays) , arguing that they should be given more ways to fuck up themselves and others makes no sense.
Common DUI/DWI Myths
We frequently hear that drunk drivers "cause 50% of all highway fatalities." This falls into the category of "tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe it."
The truth is closer to 10% of all highway fatalities are CAUSED by drunk drivers. This isn't good, but let's at least put the issue in perspective. Our government and certain self serving "non-profit" organizations have exaggerated this problem beyond any sense of reality to promote an agenda that eliminates basic individual rights, undermines our system of due process and heaps onerous penalties on people who have not injured anyone and may not have met any reasonable standard of "impairment."
The federal government defines an alcohol-related fatal traffic accident as an accident where someone died and a person involved in the accident had some measurable amount of alcohol in his or her system. For example, a sober driver hits a pedestrian who has been drinking, even modestly. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A sober driver rear-ends a driver that has had something to drink. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A man has a drink before committing suicide in his vehicle. That's an alcohol-related accident. A driver has a single drink and is involved in a fatal accident that he did not cause. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. Do these sound like "drunk-driver-caused" accidents to you? That's what the government and the anti-drinking organizations would like you to believe.
http://www.motorists.org/dui/myths
We frequently hear that drunk drivers "cause 50% of all highway fatalities." This falls into the category of "tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe it."
The truth is closer to 10% of all highway fatalities are CAUSED by drunk drivers. This isn't good, but let's at least put the issue in perspective. Our government and certain self serving "non-profit" organizations have exaggerated this problem beyond any sense of reality to promote an agenda that eliminates basic individual rights, undermines our system of due process and heaps onerous penalties on people who have not injured anyone and may not have met any reasonable standard of "impairment."
The federal government defines an alcohol-related fatal traffic accident as an accident where someone died and a person involved in the accident had some measurable amount of alcohol in his or her system. For example, a sober driver hits a pedestrian who has been drinking, even modestly. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A sober driver rear-ends a driver that has had something to drink. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. A man has a drink before committing suicide in his vehicle. That's an alcohol-related accident. A driver has a single drink and is involved in a fatal accident that he did not cause. That's considered an alcohol-related accident. Do these sound like "drunk-driver-caused" accidents to you? That's what the government and the anti-drinking organizations would like you to believe.
http://www.motorists.org/dui/myths
Ya, but people will use drugs, regardless. Prohibition didn't stop alcohol. It just made gangsters rich and tripled the crime rate. Drugs, it's the same thing. Better to have addicts alone, than addicts with a gigantic criminal culture profiting from it (including corrupt police). Portugal decriminalized and their crime rate was cut in half. Most addiction is the result of psychological trauma. It's self medication. Escapism. Treat addiction as a mental illness and the recidivism rate is much lower, and recovery much higher compared to locking 'em up for 20 years in a criminal college. The Drug War is a total failure. The Federal Government won't even protect the fucking border. Tunnels are everywhere. If the Feds won't stop it coming in, then one has to ask whats the point of the "Drug War", to begin with? It's another Fast and Furious. Create the problem that demands their solution. The Government needs a reason to get in our business, inspect our bank accounts, search our cars, seize our property, grow the police state, keep the prisons filled (big campaign donors), and keep the Federal unions bloated (another strong voting block). The Drug War does all those things. It's not about the drugs. It's about the power that comes from fighting that "war" on drugs... Bullshit, like most everything else.
Have you looked around lately? Stormfront has all but taken over P&R. While there had always been a subtle racist undertone here at P&R, it has become progressively more overt. Whether it is a matter of these bad haircuts becoming bolder or just more stupid, thinking they still have some remnant of plausible deniability, is debatable. But they have virtually free rein at P&R and, sure enough, they fester when left unfettered.
Our fellow black citizens need to get a fucking job.
+1