TheRealThing Wrote:^I hope this never happens. Cops, prosecuters and judges can make determinations about whether the users that pass through on their watch are a danger to the community or not, and act accordingly. But to legalize drug use strikes me the same as crying uncle. I can assure you parents who don't want their kids getting involved with drugs are not for legalizing drugs because of the enhanced likelihood of exposure. Not everybody can rationalize the notion of softening our national stance on drug abuse away quite so neatly. There are many hundreds of thousands (more likely millions) of kids, who being exposed to the use of so-called recreational drugs, will wind up a destroyed shell of what they were capable of becoming because they will get hooked on something more sinister than pot. On a personal note, I hung with the dopers for several years and I can tell you first hand the effects on those that use them are never neutral. There are only two possiblities for the drug user, he will have a moment of recoginition, be scared straight and quit, cold turkey and for good, or he will suffer harm and loss in every area of his life.
But, none of your business. You do advocate for a non nanny state.
TheRealThing Wrote:As usual you are woefully unimformed. My resume is quite a bit more replete, however, unlike some on here and not suffering from any form of identity crisis, I prefer to refrain from extolling my own accomplishments.
I've worked with quite a few of you 472 carpenters, I know what you do.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I understand what you are saying, but those kids to whom you prefer are already being exposed to recreational drugs and having their lives wrecked and we are all paying the price to imprison them for long stretches. They are crowding violent criminals out of our jails. I personally have very little sympathy for dopeheads but if they are going to die from drug use, I would rather they do so in somebody's basement than in a prison where my taxes pay to teach them how to commit crimes against other citizens.
I want a country that provides greater personal liberty. People would either learn to behave responsibly with that freedom, or they would cease to exist. Either way, the world would be a better place. That may sound harsh, but it is how I feel. Of course, many liberals generally support legal drug use but would want to continue being soft on violent crime. I don't think that legal drug use would be desirable without severe punishment for violent offenders.
Yeah, I'm all about giving violent offenders what for. I worry about this kind of thing because as a parent, one can nurture, teach and care for God's most precious gifts, one's children, up through the time they begin to socialize with other kids/teens. There inlies the confluence which brings on terror. They get out in a car with so-called friends whose parents really don't care that much what their kids get into, and anything from a car wreck to an introduction to drugs 101 can happen. As things stand now, possession of drugs is something they must break the law to accomplish. I'd rather keep it that way, than to be assured that most kids will be packing.
I taught my children, as best I could, how to identify and and avoid making destructive choices. Still, as I know you are aware, it's asking a lot for them to be wise enough to navigate such dangerous waters, even with the benefit of council.
TheRealThing Wrote:Yeah, I'm all about giving violent offenders what for. I worry about this kind of thing because as a parent, one can nurture, teach and care for God's most precious gifts, one's children, up through the time they begin to socialize with other kids/teens. There inlies the confluence which brings on terror. They get out in a car with so-called friends whose parents really don't care that much what their kids get into, and anything from a car wreck to an introduction to drugs 101 can happen. As things stand now, possession of drugs is something they must break the law to accomplish. I'd rather keep it that way, than to be assured that most kids will be packing.
I taught my children, as best I could, how to identify and and avoid making destructive choices. Still, as I know you are aware, it's asking a lot for them to be wise enough to navigate such dangerous waters, even with the benefit of council.
Legal age for anything for alcohol or herb is 21.
TheRealThing Wrote:Yeah, I'm all about giving violent offenders what for. I worry about this kind of thing because as a parent, one can nurture, teach and care for God's most precious gifts, one's children, up through the time they begin to socialize with other kids/teens. There inlies the confluence which brings on terror. They get out in a car with so-called friends whose parents really don't care that much what their kids get into, and anything from a car wreck to an introduction to drugs 101 can happen. As things stand now, possession of drugs is something they must break the law to accomplish. I'd rather keep it that way, than to be assured that most kids will be packing.
I taught my children, as best I could, how to identify and and avoid making destructive choices. Still, as I know you are aware, it's asking a lot for them to be wise enough to navigate such dangerous waters, even with the benefit of council.
I will concede that legalizing drugs would, at least initially, lead to more teenagers dying directly as a result. My belief is that many of those who would die would simply die a few years later or become serious criminals if they had survived their teenage years. Seeing friends and acquaintances die from drug abuse and attending their funerals is a pretty powerful argument against drug use. You mentioned kids of parents who really don't care for their children properly. Those kids die in disproportionate numbers now because of neglect and that would not change if drugs were legal.
I confess that I do not believe that the GOP would ever agree to legalizing drug use because of the religious right, even if it would be in this country's best long term interests. Politicians in this country are too quick to exploit tragedies for the changes that I suggest to work. Each time that a tragic traffic accident occurred involving drug use, some self-serving politicians would immediately try to exploit people's emotions, just as they try to do now with gun regulations following each instance of a mass murder.
Unfortunately, I believe that this country is like a plane locked on a steep descent and all people seem to be willing to do is clean the windows and upgrade the sound system. Like Harry said, the Republican leadership seems resigned to turning the party into the Democratic Lite Party. Both will destroy the country and the only difference will be the time of the crash.
TRT, not sure how long it's been since you were in school, but for me I graduated within the last ten years.
Obtaining illegal drugs was much easier than alcohol, especially weed. Prescription pills weren't much more difficult. Up until we got closer to 18, when we drank, usually someone's parents had to buy it, and we were supervised. When we did other things, not so much.
Now, I don't know if I'm fully on board with Hoot, in that buying some cocaine over the counter should be allowed. Wayyyy to addictive and dangerous when compared to the other drugs. Very easy to over dose and when you are on it, you only want more and more and more and never want to stop. The reason it is not an epidemic is the sheer cost of the product.
Weed on the other hand, is far less dangerous than some of the prescription drugs that are being given out (and not just the painkillers either) There are many types of diseases and disease processes (besides cancer, glaucoma) that marijuana would be an effective OTC treatment for. People with sleep problems, certain types of anxiety and stress disorders, HTN, and many others could effectively be treated and maintained by a person partaking in smoking some weed. When compared to many of the meds that are legally prescribed and their side effects, you truly have to wonder why those meds are not illegal and weed is.
Lets not forget the effect the illegal weed industry in America has on crime not only in America, but that completely ravages our southern neighbors. There are countries/regions that are completely controlled by the drug cartels, who make billions selling marijuana in America.
When you add the fact that legalization would cripple the cartels with the increased tax revenue it seems like a no brainer.
I know many of the very religious may object, but they can decide for themselves and their families if they want to smoke weed, it is not their decision to decide for everyone else. I won't partake myself, but why do I care if my neighbor does? I don't, they are their own man, and can make decisions for themselves.
Legalizing weed is not going to make it more accessible. Read some of the studies on HS students and what % of them already smoke weed or have tried it.
TRT you mention you have kids, now I do not know their ages, but assume that at some point they will be in HS. No matter what you do, they are going to be exposed to drugs, now if they decide they want to try smoking some weed, would you rather have them smoking a safe product from a store, or some unknown product from some shady drug dealer, who eventually is going to say "you like that weed? well try this..."
Beetle01 Wrote:Well the good news and bad news at the same time is the Democrats won't rule for long, because financially as a nation we don't have much more to give. I don't think many Democrats truly understand how close we are to the brink of a financial meltdown.
Many of our strongest corporations are struggling, the government has been overspending for more than a decade, with only increased spending on the horizon.
What else do Democrats want? Do they not realize how truly close we are to falling off the financial cliff? what happens then? No more handouts, jobless rates over 20%, and the dollar will be worth nothing more than something to wipe your butt with.
I believe they are truly in denial, or think that these 1%'s will be able to pay for it all, but even if we took everything they had, it wouldn't put a dent in the debt we will be facing. According to Obama's own predictions the debt will break 20 trillion by the end of his 2nd term.
Europe has spent more money than they have for years. But they still elect socialist democrats to lead them. France recently elected a president that promised a 75% tax on the so called rich.
It just numbers, the takers outnumber the producers and they will continue to vote for the party that give them the most. What amazes me is even the few programs the republicans have put in the democrats take credit for them.
So it's free phones, 99 week unemployment, student aid, free housing, free food, free heat, etc. I do not believe it can be reversed.
Urban areas can elect the president no matter what the rest of the country thinks. So I think we have seen the last republican president.
the other guy Wrote:Europe has spent more money than they have for years. But they still elect socialist democrats to lead them. France recently elected a president that promised a 75% tax on the so called rich.
It just numbers, the takers outnumber the producers and they will continue to vote for the party that give them the most. What amazes me is even the few programs the republicans have put in the democrats take credit for them.
So it's free phones, 99 week unemployment, student aid, free housing, free food, free heat, etc. I do not believe it can be reversed.
Urban areas can elect the president no matter what the rest of the country thinks. So I think we have seen the last republican president.
Unemployment extensions are over, as of december. If a person gets laid off after July 2012, they get no extension.
TheRealVille Wrote:Unemployment extensions are over, as of december. If a person gets laid off after July 2012, they get no extension.
I don't oppose some unemployment extensions as long as people realize that it's not unemployment insurance Any longer but welfare benefits.
the other guy Wrote:I don't oppose some unemployment extensions as long as people realize that it's not unemployment insurance Any longer but welfare benefits.
Speaking of that, a lot of people don't understand welfare benefits either, like when you hear "career welfare people" statements, they don't realize that you only get welfare for a
five year lifetime limit, with a few exceptions for extreme cases of hardship.
TheRealVille Wrote:Unemployment extensions are over, as of december. If a person gets laid off after July 2012, they get no extension.
Good. However, the trend is for them, after their unemployment expires, to apply for disability. The thought of work, I suppose, causes them trama that can be translated into greenbacks.
I know lots of attorneys who specialize in various and sundry avenues to disability payments for their clients. I also am familiar with their "chosen" partners in crime, their associated medical doctors.
As an example, I know one former steelworker who told me he was in good physical condition when he went to a certain Johnson County lawyer concerning dsability. He told the attorney that he was fine but the attorney told him to wait until he saw "his doctor". The steelworker, now on 100% disability for well over a decade, said that, when he left the office of the attorney's doctor, he wondered how he could physically make it home. But, of course, he can still play 18 holes of golf three or four times a week.
It happened over and over every day. It continues to happen over and over every day. That's how modern day America works.
I believe that the takers have turned Kennedy's famous saying "bass ackwards".
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Good. However, the trend is for them, after their unemployment expires, to apply for disability. The thought of work, I suppose, causes them trama that can be translated into greenbacks.
I know lots of attorneys who specialize in various and sundry avenues to disability payments for their clients. I also am familiar with their "chosen" partners in crime, their associated medical doctors.
As an example, I know one former steelworker who told me he was in good physical condition when he went to a certain Johnson County lawyer concerning dsability. He told the attorney that he was fine but the attorney told him to wait until he saw "his doctor". The steelworker, now on 100% disability for well over a decade, said that, when he left the office of the attorney's doctor, he wondered how he could physically make it home. But, of course, he can still play 18 holes of golf three or four times a week.
It happened over and over every day. It continues to happen over and over every day. That's how modern day America works.
I believe that the takers have turned Kennedy's famous saying "bass ackwards".
Exactly right, Harry. Disability benefits have become the new welfare checks. Under Obama, people have been "disabled" at a record rate. I guess OSHA, MSHA, etc. just are not doing their jobs. The Democrats will find a way to buy the votes of American parasites one way or another. :eyeroll:
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Exactly right, Harry. Disability benefits have become the new welfare checks. Under Obama, people have been "disabled" at a record rate. I guess OSHA, MSHA, etc. just are not doing their jobs. The Democrats will find a way to buy the votes of American parasites one way or another. :eyeroll:
about like corporate welfare
nicker:
vector Wrote:about like corporate welfare nicker:
Exactly, vector! Except the Solyndras in this country funnel taxpayer money back into Obama's campaign coffers and fire their workers when they run out of our money. All Obama asks of his deadbeat supporters is that they vote at least once in each election.
vector Wrote:about like corporate welfare nicker:
You seem to have forgotten, vector, that corporations create jobs. Poor people only create a drain on everyone else's resources.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:You seem to have forgotten, vector, that corporations create jobs. Poor people only create a drain on everyone else's resources.
working people create job's not corporations they buy there product
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Good. However, the trend is for them, after their unemployment expires, to apply for disability. The thought of work, I suppose, causes them trama that can be translated into greenbacks.
I know lots of attorneys who specialize in various and sundry avenues to disability payments for their clients. I also am familiar with their "chosen" partners in crime, their associated medical doctors.As an example, I know one former steelworker who told me he was in good physical condition when he went to a certain Johnson County lawyer concerning dsability. He told the attorney that he was fine but the attorney told him to wait until he saw "his doctor". The steelworker, now on 100% disability for well over a decade, said that, when he left the office of the attorney's doctor, he wondered how he could physically make it home. But, of course, he can still play 18 holes of golf three or four times a week.
It happened over and over every day. It continues to happen over and over every day. That's how modern day America works.
I believe that the takers have turned Kennedy's famous saying "bass ackwards".
Some of the most respected folks among us are doctors and lawyers and rightly so. However, as you mention many are guilty of unsavory business dealings. Do these so-called professionals not possess clarity of thought enough to realize bilking the taxpayer out of money will hurt the whole nation, including themselves? It's no wonder we're headed into ruin. In this case the jackals have turned on themselves in order to satisfy their wants. If client and advocate were not willing to dishonor themselves with these lies, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
vector Wrote:working people create job's not corporations they buy there product
And just who are the real "working people"? You liberals think the term only refers to union workers. That is a load of crap that has been spread for far too long.
If the corporations, the employers, didn't hire these workers, they wouldn't have any money to buy the products.
Your "working people" are merely an ingredient in the mix. You certainly don't create any jobs. And, in reality, you are easily replaceable. Owners/Investors/Management/Employers, on the other hand, give these "working people" a place to work and pay upon which to survive.
Raw materials + labor + overhead = finished products. Your "working people" are merely one-third of the production equation- labor. The owners furnish the funds to provide all three ingredients.
vector Wrote:about like corporate welfare nicker:
Like Solyndra and the other crony capitalists who contributed much of the taxpayers' money that Obama gave them back to his campaign? Is that the type of corporate welfare to which you refer?
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:And just who are the real "working people"? You liberals think the term only refers to union workers. That is a load of crap that has been spread for far too long.
If the corporations, the employers, didn't hire these workers, they wouldn't have any money to buy the products.
Your "working people" are merely an ingredient in the mix. You certainly don't create any jobs. And, in reality, you are easily replaceable. Owners/Investors/Management/Employers, on the other hand, give these "working people" a place to work and pay upon which to survive.
Raw materials + labor + overhead = finished products. Your "working people" are merely one-third of the production equation- labor. The owners furnish the funds to provide all three ingredients.
Most real "working people" voted for Romney. Obama can thank the deadbeats who sold their votes for a free cell phone for electing him.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:And just who are the real "working people"? You liberals think the term only refers to union workers. That is a load of crap that has been spread for far too long.
If the corporations, the employers, didn't hire these workers, they wouldn't have any money to buy the products.
Your "working people" are merely an ingredient in the mix. You certainly don't create any jobs. And, in reality, you are easily replaceable. Owners/Investors/Management/Employers, on the other hand, give these "working people" a place to work and pay upon which to survive.
Raw materials + labor + overhead = finished products. Your "working people" are merely one-third of the production equation- labor. The owners furnish the funds to provide all three ingredients.
I agree with your conclusions, I would just add that even though the owners provide for 2 thirds of your equation, the law of supply and demand always holds the trump card. The best labor force in the world is useless without a vibrant economy calling for those goods and services.
TheRealThing Wrote:I agree with your conclusions, I would just add that even though the owners provide for 2 thirds of your equation, the law of supply and demand always holds the trump card. The best labor force in the world is useless without a vibrant economy calling for those goods and services.
Actually the owners provide all three thirds of the equation. The labor, like material and overhead, are provided by the owners. None of the three is any more important than the other. For example, materials can be bought from several suppliers therefore allowing the owners to not depend entirely on one supplier. Labor is the same. If one group of workers aren't acceptable, owners have a large pool of other workers from which to choose. Of course, with any of the ingredients, legally binding contracts play a part as to just how soon owners can make the change. But, sooner or later, the unacceptable, labor or materials, can be removed and replaced.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Most real "working people" voted for Romney. Obama can thank the deadbeats who sold their votes for a free cell phone for electing him.
not in this part of the country
vector Wrote:not in this part of the country
Real working people in Kentucky voted mostly for Romney, even in the four Kentucky counties that Obama won. Welfare recipients, including SSI parasites, and college students who do not know any better gave Obama those counties. Real working people in West Virginia delivered every single county to Romney. Obama had the deadbeat vote locked up, and the number of people who qualify for that category boomed during the last four years.
How would small businesses fair around here without the first I the month shopping boom?
Wildcatk23 Wrote:How would small businesses fair around here without the first I the month shopping boom?
Some would no doubt fail. How would they fair if the majority of people got a weekly paycheck?
SKINNYPIG Wrote:Some would no doubt fail. How would they fair if the majority of people got a weekly paycheck?
Much better I assume. Be better for everyone.
But ALOT of these check takers would not get another job. Plus there is no jobs? Remember.
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Much better I assume. Be better for everyone.
But ALOT of these check takers would not get another job. Plus there is no jobs? Remember.
I know. "ALOT" of these check takers need to be weaned off the teat one way or another. If not, this part of the country will never improve much.
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Much better I assume. Be better for everyone.
But ALOT of these check takers would not get another job. Plus there is no jobs? Remember.
There are no jobs because the parasites have chased them away. Nobody in their right mind is going to move a new business into eastern Kentucky. We used to be known for our work ethic and now our place of birth is known for its meth dealers and government check cashers.
There is no business climate statistic to recommend the area as one worthy of new capital investments. The growth of the welfare state is killing eastern Kentucky.