the mexicans decapitated the organizations there, removing the people with intelligence and the ability to keep the goons in check, and the goons, now left to their own devices, are running amok (especially the zetas, rough bunch of scumbags...)
I hadn't realized that's what the deal was. I've been advised that half of one of the gangs is waiting in Laredo until things cool down, presumably making things hell for all the Texans down there, and that I should not enter that city unless heavily armed. Of course, this is the same guy who claims that Tomball is the meth capital of the world. And that we need to all wear tinfoil hats or the CIA will control our minds... So I take it with a grain of salt.
So, threadjack: I just got to my hotel for Gencon. Anyone else here? We should meet up.
So, threadjack: I just got to my hotel for Gencon. Anyone else here? We should meet up.
Where is it? If it's near driving distance to Houston, I might be tempted (hell, the Geological Society of America conference is here this year...). Never been to a Con before (what my wife calls a "Geek-Fest").
A bunch of relatively minor attacks abroad could tie-up our troops there and, with a large enough force(and there are a few that hate us enough), an invasion of the US would be relatively easy. I think the US has become too confident that it won't happen because we have never had a war(excepting the civil and the war to break free of England's reign) on American soil. Someone will eventually take advantage of that if we keep leaving the option there. Russia and China strike me as "enemy of my enemy" types of countries.
<Sending assassins to silence FH before he realizes the China-Canada connection and predicts the forthcoming invasion.>
|
the mexicans decapitated the organizations there, removing the people with intelligence and the ability to keep the goons in check, and the goons, now left to their own devices, are running amok (especially the zetas, rough bunch of scumbags...)I hadn't realized that's what the deal was. I've been advised that half of one of the gangs is waiting in Laredo until things cool down, presumably making things hell for all the Texans down there, and that I should not enter that city unless heavily armed. Of course, this is the same guy who claims that Tomball is the meth capital of the world. And that we need to all wear tinfoil hats or the CIA will control our minds... So I take it with a grain of salt.
nuevo laredo is pretty bad right noe, actually, which stinks, because in normal times its a heck of a fun town. and, yeah, tomball is bad for labs, but that's the same in a lot of texas towns...
|
|
So, threadjack: I just got to my hotel for Gencon. Anyone else here? We should meet up.Where is it? If it's near driving distance to Houston, I might be tempted (hell, the Geological Society of America conference is here this year...). Never been to a Con before (what my wife calls a "Geek-Fest").
i think its in indianapolis this year. we have owlcon in houston, i think thats it for gaming here...
|
Prefixing any/all the below with "I believe that..." or something to that effect...
I support euthanasia.
Agree, with the condition that the patient is capable of giving consent up to, and immediately prior to, the euthenasia being performed. There need to be a few safeguards, but it shouldn't be illegal.
I support gay marriage.
I know of no reason why it should be illegal, therefore it should be legal.
I support abortion.
I think it's a shame that it's necessary, and I'd rather it was never needed, but it shouldn't be illegal, and should necessarily be freely and easily available. I believe there should be significantly increased contraception-oriented sex ed for teenagers.
I do NOT support affirmative action.
I agree; two wrongs don't make a right.
I do NOT support gun control.
I support partial gun control; if you've no criminal record, a psych signs a form saying your sane, you've passed appropriate training in the care and use of firearms, and the weapons are appropriately stored then private ownership of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles is fine. I don't believe there's any requirement for private ownership of automatic weapons.
I do not support suspension of habeas corpus under ANY circumstances.
Agree. No qualification or elaboration required on this one.
I appreciate and acknowledge the value of capitalism, and agree to an extent that "a rising tide lifts all boats." However, when the middle-class shows a sustained pattern of stagnant (or declinging) wages and/or wealth, then something has gone very, very wrong.
Agree with you up to the "however, ...". Recession, and related economic problems, are natural elements of the economy, and are not in and of themselves an indicator of something going wrong. Boom-and-bust behaviour obviously needs managing, but in liberal free markets periods of recession will occur, and excessive manipulation to prevent them is liable to cause more harm than it does good.
One that wasn't mentioned but which I'll add -- drugs. I believe cannabis should be comparable to tobacco in terms of legality; I believe they're comparably dangerous, and that their illegality contributes directly to increased use of harder drugs. Enforcement should focus primarily on the dealers rather than on users (attack the supply-side rather than the demand-side).
Another that hasn't been mentioned -- genetic engineering, in particular stem cell research. I believe this is of great importance, and believe it to provide unmissable opportunities to remove numerous medical problems that cause immense suffering to countless people. I believe that involuntary death is an abomination (I still believe euthenasia should be legal), and hope that medical science progresses to the point where there is no involuntary death (yes, there'll be other problems -- resource requirements, etc -- but those are other problems to be solved).
Context which may have influenced some/all of the above -- middleclass professional, 30-something, straight, white, male, British. Some of the above positions would probably change if we lived in a utopia.
|
One that wasn't mentioned but which I'll add -- drugs. I believe cannabis should be comparable to tobacco in terms of legality; I believe they're comparably dangerous, and that their illegality contributes directly to increased use of harder drugs. Enforcement should focus primarily on the dealers rather than on users (attack the supply-side rather than the demand-side).
Over the years, I've actually been moving further into the camp of supporting the legalization of marijuana (spelling?). The legal camparison to tobacco sounds about right, although I think pot would have to be a little more closely regulated. If they did legalize it, then they could tax it, could license people to grow and sell it, etc. I would think this could generate more revenue for the government, and free up money spent on enforcement for other things (especially enforcement of more dangerous drugs).
One that wasn't mentioned but which I'll add -- drugs. I believe cannabis should be comparable to tobacco in terms of legality; I believe they're comparably dangerous, and that their illegality contributes directly to increased use of harder drugs. Enforcement should focus primarily on the dealers rather than on users (attack the supply-side rather than the demand-side).Over the years, I've actually been moving further into the camp of supporting the legalization of marijuana (spelling?). The legal camparison to tobacco sounds about right, although I think pot would have to be a little more closely regulated. If they did legalize it, then they could tax it, could license people to grow and sell it, etc. I would think this could generate more revenue for the government, and free up money spent on enforcement for other things (especially enforcement of more dangerous drugs).
I'd regulate it a bit more stridently than tobacco because it does impair driving. But a combination of alcohol-style and tobacco-style regulation, I think, would work.
|
|
I identify with the Libertarians much more than either major party. I tend to have a touch more respect for the role of government than they do, but otherwise we mostly agree. I just don't think they're viable, unfortunately.
They'll never be viable unless people start voting for them :)
The only other alternative is being "stuck" with two parties that only care about their own power and agenda...
|
|
I'd regulate it a bit more stridently than tobacco because it does impair driving. But a combination of alcohol-style and tobacco-style regulation, I think, would work.One that wasn't mentioned but which I'll add -- drugs. I believe cannabis should be comparable to tobacco in terms of legality; I believe they're comparably dangerous, and that their illegality contributes directly to increased use of harder drugs. Enforcement should focus primarily on the dealers rather than on users (attack the supply-side rather than the demand-side).Over the years, I've actually been moving further into the camp of supporting the legalization of marijuana (spelling?). The legal camparison to tobacco sounds about right, although I think pot would have to be a little more closely regulated. If they did legalize it, then they could tax it, could license people to grow and sell it, etc. I would think this could generate more revenue for the government, and free up money spent on enforcement for other things (especially enforcement of more dangerous drugs).
Actually, I think most DUI/DWI laws already cover it; I don't believe they distinguish HOW you are impaired or intoxicated, just that you are. So while I'm certainly no lawyer or legal expert, I don't think you would have to enact any new regulations beyond what's already there ...
|
|
I'd regulate it a bit more stridently than tobacco because it does impair driving. But a combination of alcohol-style and tobacco-style regulation, I think, would work.One that wasn't mentioned but which I'll add -- drugs. I believe cannabis should be comparable to tobacco in terms of legality; I believe they're comparably dangerous, and that their illegality contributes directly to increased use of harder drugs. Enforcement should focus primarily on the dealers rather than on users (attack the supply-side rather than the demand-side).Over the years, I've actually been moving further into the camp of supporting the legalization of marijuana (spelling?). The legal camparison to tobacco sounds about right, although I think pot would have to be a little more closely regulated. If they did legalize it, then they could tax it, could license people to grow and sell it, etc. I would think this could generate more revenue for the government, and free up money spent on enforcement for other things (especially enforcement of more dangerous drugs).
I'd like to see somemore research done before I come down on one side or the other. Most people I've know who got into hard drugs started with cannibus. However, I've also known people who smoke weed and (to my knowledge) never graduated to the harder stuff. Kind of like when I started drinking. I started with a light beer one day at a party and within a few monthes was up to uzo. (spelling?) Meanwhile, some people never move past light beer. Which is a real shame if you ask me.
I'd like to see somemore research done before I come down on one side or the other. Most people I've know who got into hard drugs started with cannibus. However, I've also known people who smoke weed and (to my knowledge) never graduated to the harder stuff. Kind of like when I started drinking. I started with a light beer one day at a party and within a few monthes was up to uzo. (spelling?) Meanwhile, some people never move past light beer. Which is a real shame if you ask me.
Well, most people I know who even started smoking pot started drinking first. That's why I have problems with marijuana being the "gateway" drug. I think it's more of an indicator of personality type. If you're willing to move from alcohol to an illegal drug, you're inclined to scoff the law on illegal drugs. It's not marijuana, per se, that leads you to stronger drugs. It's your attitude.
|
|
I'd like to see somemore research done before I come down on one side or the other. Most people I've know who got into hard drugs started with cannibus. However, I've also known people who smoke weed and (to my knowledge) never graduated to the harder stuff.
I don't buy the "gateway drug" argument; essentially in order to obtain cannabis you need to associate with drug dealers, further there's the "thin end of the wedge" argument (which in general I dislike, but which I feel is valid in this case) that by breaking a particular law in an "acceptable" way (using pot) it becomes more acceptable to break the same law in other ways (heroin, etc).
I sometimes wonder how many pro-weed folk are also supporters of those anti-smoking ads. Something not consistent with someone like that.
|
|
I'd like to see somemore research done before I come down on one side or the other. Most people I've know who got into hard drugs started with cannibus. However, I've also known people who smoke weed and (to my knowledge) never graduated to the harder stuff.I don't buy the "gateway drug" argument; essentially in order to obtain cannabis you need to associate with drug dealers, further there's the "thin end of the wedge" argument (which in general I dislike, but which I feel is valid in this case) that by breaking a particular law in an "acceptable" way (using pot) it becomes more acceptable to break the same law in other ways (heroin, etc).
That's why I was saying that there should be some sort of scientific study. I don't know how we could do it with out crossing into Mazlo territory, but there still should be a body of scientific evidence. There are plenty of country where drug use is legal that we could do some sort of tracking study at least and thereby eleminate the factor of having to commit an illegal act to get cannibus in the first place.
I absolutely agree that in the US drug dealers play a big factor in the whole "gateway drug" concept. I think it is more a factor of pushing people to take the more expensive, more adictive drugs so the dealer makes more money than just hanging out with people doing illegal things making it more acceptable. However, in order to get accurate data we do need to remove the dealer from the equatsion.
|
|
I absolutely agree that in the US drug dealers play a big factor in the whole "gateway drug" concept. I think it is more a factor of pushing people to take the more expensive, more adictive drugs so the dealer makes more money than just hanging out with people doing illegal things making it more acceptable. However, in order to get accurate data we do need to remove the dealer from the equatsion.
i would like to say, as a former "unlicensed street pharmacist" (since "rehabilitated" by our wonderful criminal justice system) that peers have a lot more to do with people moving up the serious drug usage chain than dealers. the stereotypical image of the "pusher" is skewed, actually. drugs sell themselves, dealers only have to make the availablilty known, not actively pursue new customers.
|
|
Going back to the Georgia issue, The Russians released a statement that said that the world should "just forget about" Georgia. That sounds a lot like they do not plan to stop their invasion until Georgia is completely under Russian control. If that happened Russia would control every oil pipeline flowing into western Europe. Does that make a difference in anyone's attitude about how we should respond?
|
|
Going back to the Georgia issue, The Russians released a statement that said that the world should "just forget about" Georgia. That sounds a lot like they do not plan to stop their invasion until Georgia is completely under Russian control. If that happened Russia would control every oil pipeline flowing into western Europe. Does that make a difference in anyone's attitude about how we should respond?
the US is already sending in warships to protect the humanitarian aid we are sending georgia. right now, the only question is "will we simply hand over the supplies to the georgian military, or will our troops be used as bodyguards to ensure the aid gets to the people it is intended for".
the US government isn't interested in just "forgetting" georgia, neither are the polish, latvian, lithuanian nor estonian governments.
russia is playing a very dangerous game right now...
|
|
Going back to the Georgia issue, The Russians released a statement that said that the world should "just forget about" Georgia. That sounds a lot like they do not plan to stop their invasion until Georgia is completely under Russian control. If that happened Russia would control every oil pipeline flowing into western Europe. Does that make a difference in anyone's attitude about how we should respond?the US is already sending in warships to protect the humanitarian aid we are sending georgia. right now, the only question is "will we simply hand over the supplies to the georgian military, or will our troops be used as bodyguards to ensure the aid gets to the people it is intended for".
the US government isn't interested in just "forgetting" georgia, neither are the polish, latvian, lithuanian nor estonian governments.
russia is playing a very dangerous game right now...
The latest reports are that Russia is bombing Georgia's sea and airports so that the humanitarian aid will have no way to get in. That's going to complicate matters a lot.
|
|
The latest reports are that Russia is bombing Georgia's sea and airports so that the humanitarian aid will have no way to get in. That's going to complicate matters a lot.
like i said, they're playing chicken with europe and the US right now. i don't think our CiC even knows how to blink, so this could get hairy, fast...
On the flip side, we're looking at a Georgian province in which the residents see themselves as Russians, which actively tried to break away from Georgia, and asked Russia for help in so doing. Do we deny that they have the right to choose their own leadership? Is that the kind of democracy we stand for?
Not that the Russians are any better; it's just one of those issues where it's easy to peg people as "good guys" and "bad guys" without looking at the whole picture. A weaker Russia is in the strategic interests of the West. But that doesn't mean that the Georgians are ethical saints, either.
|
Wasn't Georgia one of the countries that Bush wanted on the fast track to NATO membership? Can you imagine if that had taken place? We'd be at war with Russia right now. WWI all over again, but with Nukes :)
Or maybe Russia wouldn't be doing what they're doing right now. The other freaky thing about this kind of conflict is the possibility that some of these former soviet republics still have nuclear material hanging around from their days with the CCCP. They have some pretty ugly problems when it comes to accounting for some of that material. Who knows?
It is possible that the Russian action was intended to stop Georgia joining NATO, given that Russia resents being encircled by NATO or NATO-friendly countries which it still seems to regard as enemies (well, old habits maybe die hard among the ex-KGB). Whether that will be the case or not depends on how much Europe decides it needs to contain Russia or how much it decides it wants a quiet life and the oil and gas pumped across without fuss. Georgia and Ukraine, on the other hand, will doubtless be very keen on NATO membership now.
|
|
Regarding the Russia-Georgia situation:
Charles Krauthammer had an interesting article on National Review suggestioning a 4-pronged U.S./European method for dealing with Russia's actions.
|
|
On the flip side, we're looking at a Georgian province in which the residents see themselves as Russians, which actively tried to break away from Georgia, and asked Russia for help in so doing. Do we deny that they have the right to choose their own leadership? Is that the kind of democracy we stand for?
It's a bit more complicated than that. Simply because some people want to break away that doesn't give them a "democratic" right so to do. What if New York decided to secede from the United States, or London from the rest of the UK (and take all of the investment banking and GDP that generates, most of the time)? These sort of things require the will of both parties to be rid of one another, given the serious problems interms of who gets which bits. When the Czech Republic and Slovakia parted company, Slovakia entered quite a steep decline since it got the crummy bits of Czechoslovakia, and while the Belgians talk a lot about splitting up the nation, the guys who are keen (the Flemings) have the good bit and the guys who are unkeen (the Walloons) have the crappy bit. Would it really be fair to just shrug and allow the Flemings to set up their nice rich, cosy state and make life hard for the Walloons, even though the Walloons don't want it would be seriously disadvantaged by it?
Re Georgia and South Ossetia, I don't know the history much, but as far as I know they are effectively little gangster states propped up by the Russian (a bit like Belarus, though on a much smaller scale). Russia (or the current Russian nationalist leadership) have a real chip on their shoulders about losing the Cold War and the subsequent, dramatic decline in what used to be, if we recall, a global superpower on a par with the US. They also seem to retain the Soviet mindset that foreign policy is a zero-sum game where if someone is doing well, then they must have lost somehow. Abhazia and South Ossetia probably wouldn't survive as separate entities if they weren't propped up by the Russians. It's not even clear if the current conflict was started by the Georgian or whether the provocation they have received from the regimes in the breakaway bits of their country. I'm not stating that the Georgians can do no wrong - actually, their country is pretty corrupt as far as I know and there have been some rather worrying things re democracy there too. But the Russian actions seem to be on a par with a lot of stuff they have been doing, where they are asseting their power across the region. They are not protecting an oppressed minority - they happily killed their own citizens in Chechnya - but are instead trying to intimidate a Western ally. And if it pushes up the price of oil, so much the better...
I'm not stating that the Georgians can do no wrong - actually, their country is pretty corrupt as far as I know and there have been some rather worrying things re democracy there too. But the Russian actions seem to be on a par with a lot of stuff they have been doing, where they are asseting their power across the region.
Agreed. As I said, it's clearly in our interest to be on the Georgian side on this one, but the talk is swiftly moving into "good guy/bad guy" mode, implying some sort of moral superiority on the part of Georgia -- which I feel would be a grotesque misinterpretation of their motives.
I sometimes wonder how many pro-weed folk are also supporters of those anti-smoking ads. Something not consistent with someone like that.
Me. I'm pro-legalization, but I still don't people smoking in public places without going outside to do it and I don't smoke myself. I'd send the pot smokers outside as well.
Within certain reasonable limits, people can choose their own self-damaging vices. Mine is beer. I just think that society has an interest in regulating where you can engage in it in public.
|
|
I sometimes wonder how many pro-weed folk are also supporters of those anti-smoking ads. Something not consistent with someone like that.
I am for the legalization of marijuana as long as the people who regulate it don't go around adding stuff to make it addictive or more harmful. I also support the anti-smoking movement mostly because of the deception, addictive additives, and the burden on our healthcare industry. I am an ex-smoker (marlboro red, pack and a half a day for 10 years, haven't smoked in almost 7 years) and as someone who used to smoke cocaine (crack!) for a couple years pretty heavily(I had some depression issues I was trying to cover up) I found that quitting cigarettes was much harder than quitting crack. I've heard the same thing from almost everyone I have talked to who have experience in quitting both. That ain't cool.
|
|
I sometimes wonder how many pro-weed folk are also supporters of those anti-smoking ads. Something not consistent with someone like that.Me. I'm pro-legalization, but I still don't people smoking in public places without going outside to do it and I don't smoke myself. I'd send the pot smokers outside as well.
Within certain reasonable limits, people can choose their own self-damaging vices. Mine is beer. I just think that society has an interest in regulating where you can engage in it in public.
I hadn't really given it deep thought, but I'd probably have to agree with Bill - legalization, but keep away from me you smokers. Full Disclosure, however, this would be a case of enlightened self-interest - I'm an ex-smoker and keeping them away helps me stay that way.
|
|
As I said, it's clearly in our interest to be on the Georgian side on this one, but the talk is swiftly moving into "good guy/bad guy" mode, implying some sort of moral superiority on the part of Georgia -- which I feel would be a grotesque misinterpretation of their motives.
I think you do a disservice to the Georgian regime, which is genuinely reformist. I don't know how you interpret their motives, but wanting to bring to heel breakaway regions where the main industry is crime seems reasonable enough to me.
No worries; I'll drop the topic. Personally, I have a hard time seeing the world in black and white, especially if I'm not directly involved -- probably a failing on my part, but there you have it.
Well, I read the Economist and it has a soft spot for the place.
I can certainly understand that; I love The Economist. I wish my wife's well-meaning grandmother had given her a subscription to that, instead of Time (which I personally dislike because it always seems like it's written as if for high schoolers).
|
|
I love The Economist.
When it plops through the door every week, it's like an old friend has come round to continue an interesting chat we were having. It has probably shaped my views on politics quite dramatically, since I've been subscribing (with a couple of years gap) for about ten years. It should be required reading, in my view.
i think its in indianapolis this year. we have owlcon in houston, i think thats it for gaming here...So, threadjack: I just got to my hotel for Gencon. Anyone else here? We should meet up.Where is it? If it's near driving distance to Houston, I might be tempted (hell, the Geological Society of America conference is here this year...). Never been to a Con before (what my wife calls a "Geek-Fest").
When is Owlcon anyways? Houston's only a few hours away for me.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hey guys! I missed this thread, but here I am, and I have some marshmallows and grahm crackers and I thought...
...
hey...where are the flames??!?! I can't get a toasty brown marshmallow without any flames!
I suppose I'll have to be content with that warm glow of seeing this place at it's best. Great thread, I've got nothing meaningful to contribute except for best wishes that it stays this friendly.
|
|
When is Owlcon anyways? Houston's only a few hours away for me.i think its in indianapolis this year. we have owlcon in houston, i think thats it for gaming here...So, threadjack: I just got to my hotel for Gencon. Anyone else here? We should meet up.Where is it? If it's near driving distance to Houston, I might be tempted (hell, the Geological Society of America conference is here this year...). Never been to a Con before (what my wife calls a "Geek-Fest").
it's february 6-8, held on campus at rice university.
here's the link, but the site is undergoing revisions for this year's con.
When is Owlcon anyways? Houston's only a few hours away for me.i think its in indianapolis this year. we have owlcon in houston, i think thats it for gaming here...So, threadjack: I just got to my hotel for Gencon. Anyone else here? We should meet up.Where is it? If it's near driving distance to Houston, I might be tempted (hell, the Geological Society of America conference is here this year...). Never been to a Con before (what my wife calls a "Geek-Fest").it's february 6-8, held on campus at rice university.
here's the link, but the site is undergoing revisions for this year's con.
Thanks!
|
|
Agree with you up to the "however, ...". Recession, and related economic problems, are natural elements of the economy, and are not in and of themselves an indicator of something going wrong. Boom-and-bust behaviour obviously needs managing, but in liberal free markets periods of recession will occur, and excessive manipulation to prevent them is liable to cause more harm than it does good.
I think its a bigger problem that the disparity between the highest earner in a company and the lowest earners has become so much larger than it was in the past. In 1950, the disparity ratio was about 1:100 -- the guy on the assembly made about $1 for every $100 that the CEO made -- while currently the disparity is 1:1000 and still rising. That middle class wages have stayed stagnant for thirty years while CEO earnings have increased by over a 1000% points to a serious problem in American society. I'm not sure if this is a political problem so much as a cultural one, a culture of selfishness and me-ism. But it is very much the reality that we are heading towards the sort of income disparity seen in third world countries.
One that wasn't mentioned but which I'll add -- drugs. I believe cannabis should be comparable to tobacco in terms of legality; I believe they're comparably dangerous, and that their illegality contributes directly to increased use of harder drugs. Enforcement should focus primarily on the dealers rather than on users (attack the supply-side rather than the demand-side).
While this is almost certainly in part because I went to school in Washington State, one of the more surprising things I learned while pursuing my degree (criminal justice) was just how many cops HATE drug laws. Many of them feel caught in a catch-22: they need the money that anti-drug programs bring in to replace aging equipment and keep up with technology standards, but at the same time most police recognize that enforcing drug laws does far, far more harm than good. A lot of police forces were excited about the new anti-terrorism efforts because they could get funding through anti-terrorism efforts without having to crack down on drugs.
Every cop who has been on a force for more than a decade can tell you about the drug-users turned hardened criminal. They all see it happen. You bust some kid at 18 for possession, and then ten years later you're busting the same kid -- now an adult -- for real crimes. Maybe he would have become a productive citizen, but instead he went to the School for Hardened Criminals (i.e. prison) and "learned a trade" (hard crime), and thanks to his record can't compete in the economy. So crime becomes his only avenue, and
I seriously don't understand our drug laws. They're completely asinine, everyone who knows anything about criminal justice knows they don't work at all, and they flood our prisons with non-violent offenders who then become violent offenders. The war on (some) drugs is a huge waste of time, resources and money that causes far, far more problems for our society than it prevents. Then you look at Europe with their "drugs are a public health issue, not a criminal justice issue" viewpoint and they are having SO MUCH MORE success dealing with drugs than we are.
But it's a third rail in American politics. You can't come out in favor of a sane and sensible drug policy, because some jackass will always point at you and say "You want babies to smoke crack!"
Very frustrating.
Oh well, at least we have the best sex crimes laws in the world. Europe is totally eating our dust in that area.
|
|
I am for the legalization of marijuana as long as the people who regulate it don't go around adding stuff to make it addictive or more harmful.
I think the worst thing about our drug laws is that it makes it easier for children to get marijuana than alcohol, and because the drug trade is completely unregulated, you have people selling children pot laced with crack-cocaine and PCP, or grown in dangerous fertilizers that can cause serious lung damage, or stored and shipped improperly leading to the spread of harmful molds.
Drugs would be far, far safer and far easier to keep out of the hands of children if we would adopt a sensible approach to their regulation.
Phillip Morris may be one of the nastiest, sleaziest, and most underhanded corporations in the world, but I still would trust them far more than I trust Columbian and Jamaican drug cartels.
Oh well, at least we have the best sex crimes laws in the world. Europe is totally eating our dust in that area.
How so? I mean, some states will put a 17-year-old in a maximim security prison for 10 years if his girlfriend is 15. Then, when he gets out, he's on a "sex offender" list FOREVER, and is forever barred from living in most cities. His debt to society, such as it were, is never repaid.
So, yes, many of the U.S. laws may be stricter, if that's what you meant. But I'm not sure I'd say they're better, without knowing in what way that's measured.
|
|
How so? I mean, some states will put a 17-year-old in a maximim security prison for 10 years if his girlfriend is 15. Then, when he gets out, he's on a "sex offender" list FOREVER, and is forever barred from living in most cities.
I'm pretty sure that he meant that sarcastically.
I'm pretty sure that he meant that sarcastically.
Oh. Oh, well then I agree!
|
|
Oh well, at least we have the best sex crimes laws in the world. Europe is totally eating our dust in that area.
How so? I mean, some states will put a 17-year-old in a maximim security prison for 10 years if his girlfriend is 15. Then, when he gets out, he's on a "sex offender" list FOREVER, and is forever barred from living in most cities. His debt to society, such as it were, is never repaid.
So, yes, many of the U.S. laws may be stricter, if that's what you meant. But I'm not sure I'd say they're better, without knowing in what way that's measured.
for the record, the scenario you detail (17 year old with a 15 year old) isn't a crime in texas. they have a "two year" rule, starting at 14 and ending at 18, so, by law, a 14 year old can date a 16 year old, 15/17, 16/18, 17/19 and once you hit 18 its all good, legally.
just saying ;)
for the record, the scenario you detail isn't a crime in texas.
Hell, driving drunk, pausing only to fire off a few hundred rounds into the oncoming traffic, doesn't seem to be a crime in Texas either! On the other hand, in Connecticut, a kid who has just turned 17 can be tried for statutory rape of a girl who turns 17 the very next day.
for the record, the scenario you detail isn't a crime in texas.Hell, driving drunk, pausing only to fire off a few hundred rounds into the oncoming traffic, doesn't seem to be a crime in Texas either! On the other hand, in Connecticut, a kid who has just turned 17 can be tried for statutory rape of a girl who turns 17 the very next day.
I'm in the bar business myself and I can tell you in Texas the law is hard on DWI's. At least in my area anyways.
|
|
for the record, the scenario you detail isn't a crime in texas.Hell, driving drunk, pausing only to fire off a few hundred rounds into the oncoming traffic, doesn't seem to be a crime in Texas either! On the other hand, in Connecticut, a kid who has just turned 17 can be tried for statutory rape of a girl who turns 17 the very next day.I'm in the bar business myself and I can tell you in Texas the law is hard on DWI's. At least in my area anyways.
oh, they're no joke in houston either, trust me.
you're up around temple/mexia/waco someplace, right?
for the record, the scenario you detail isn't a crime in texas.Hell, driving drunk, pausing only to fire off a few hundred rounds into the oncoming traffic, doesn't seem to be a crime in Texas either! On the other hand, in Connecticut, a kid who has just turned 17 can be tried for statutory rape of a girl who turns 17 the very next day.I'm in the bar business myself and I can tell you in Texas the law is hard on DWI's. At least in my area anyways.
oh, they're no joke in houston either, trust me.
you're up around temple/mexia/waco someplace, right?
Yep. Temple.