Weed Not Good For Music

[Gifthorse]

Why do they keep pumping money into the war on drugs? Putting the product into the hands of the criminals adds a criminal element to it. No different then when they tried it with alcohol. People are going to buy it no matter what you do. Rather then have to buy it from dealers with guns, why not buy it from a government sanctioned store (Like a liquor store) where the proprietor isn't going to get upset and kill you if he's a little low on cash that day.

Now that is smart. Uh oh I posted an opinion, now someone will post a page long post to make mine dissapear.

[Tone Taster]

, why not buy it from a government sanctioned store (Like a liquor store)

Because why should everything have to be at the whims of a bunch of men and women D/B/A congress.

 

Why should something voluntary be subject to the written will of men and women calling themselves a legislature?

 

With all respect justly due to the sincerity of your post, this mentality elevates the STATE to a God status.

[A String]

Originally posted by Caputo:

, why not buy it from a government sanctioned store (Like a liquor store)

Because why should everything have to be at the whims of a bunch of men and women D/B/A congress.

 

Why should something voluntary be subject to the written will of men and women calling themselves a legislature?

 

With all respect justly due to the sincerity of your post, this mentality elevates the STATE to a God status.

It really doesn't have to be a government sanctioned store, I just mentioned that as one of a number of options that are better then a street dealer. Really, any store will do.

 

In Amsterdam, they have an area where you can purchase and use pot. It can not be sold anywhere outside of this area.

 

I think that, as long as it's handled in a way that controls who can purchase it (age restrictions being the top of the list), then it would be a much better alternative to leaving it up to the criminals to supply it.

[A String]

Originally posted by flagshipmile:

Why do they keep pumping money into the war on drugs? Putting the product into the hands of the criminals adds a criminal element to it. No different then when they tried it with alcohol. People are going to buy it no matter what you do. Rather then have to buy it from dealers with guns, why not buy it from a government sanctioned store (Like a liquor store) where the proprietor isn't going to get upset and kill you if he's a little low on cash that day.

Now that is smart. Uh oh I posted an opinion, now someone will post a page long post to make mine dissapear.

Did someone's post push you off the page? Was it one of mine? If so I apologies. I really want this discussion to be fair on both sides.

[Gifthorse]

Nah A string, not you. I dunno, I just noticed a cheap pattern of pigeon holing going on. No biggie.

 

Just makes me less interested in the forum.

[skipclone 1]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

Japan is weird-in a similar appeasement no doubt, a roach can send you to prison.

Uhmmm... what DO the Japanese do for jollies, traditionally?

 

Do they just drink sake or do they have some sort of plants, weeds, mushrooms or something like that? I'm thinking of things like Mandrake, Peyote and so on.

Actually sake is considered rather passe by the younger crowd these days, they are drinking more shochu (shao jiu, in Chinese), which is made from potatos, among other things. I prefer sake by far, one of the finest drinks in the world IMO.

Generally when people get busted over here its for stimulants-to my mind that`s about the last thing this culture needs, more acceleration. I think the term `stimulant` is used loosely here to cover several chemically distinct but psychotropically related substances. As far as native psychoactive plants, they were probably paved over a long time ago along with several native cultures such as the Ainu in Hokkaido. I`m not aware of any.

 

BTW, I think I printed out then deleted most of the articles I wanted to link to-my inbox was and is too full. But it`s easy to find them on the net There was a great one about an agent who was transferred from the Chicago office to Burma, but was run out of town by his superiors-for doing his job too well. The field agents had an `understanding` with the local opium lords and this guy`s idea was that they should be arresting them. It`s not hard to conjecture how that `understanding` worked-a certain amount of opium would be allowed to move in exchange for cooperation (or perhaps a percentage of the profits) on matters related to the Burmese gov`t, which certainly is not cooperative on its own. It`s not such a stretch-drug money and arms money (think Iran-Contra) doesn`t come from the U.S. governemnt and doesn`t show up on any budget report. Even the so-called `black budget` is limited to a dollar amount per year. Those funds in turn are used to finance destabilization campaigns aimed at governments viewed as hostile or just insufficiently compliant, or sometimes against local people who get in the way. Another good one was about the agency cutting deals with L.A. gangs. As long as the illegal drug market remains lucrative, all sides are going to exploit it to the hilt. I don`t know a thing about the supply chain for meth, but cutting deals with drug barons could end up having a big effect on the bloodstream of someone you care about.

Have a nice day.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Caputo:

Because why should everything have to be at the whims of a bunch of men and women D/B/A congress.

Well.. because you elected them to make laws in the name of you, the people?

 

Originally posted by Caputo:

Why should something voluntary be subject to the written will of men and women calling themselves a legislature?

Just because they might sell drugs in a store it doesn't mean you have to walk in and buy them. Commercializing drugs might even be a good idea insofar as it would strip away the "mystique" of drugs. Drugs'd become as "cool" and "rebellious" as well... beer.

 

Originally posted by Caputo:

With all respect justly due to the sincerity of your post, this mentality elevates the STATE to a God status.

At the moment, the only people who physicaly hand over dope to a paying customer are various street dealers.

 

Have THEY been elevated to a Godlike status?

 

Not really. If anyone idolizes dope dealers I'd say it's mostly misguided suburban boys and a few others, (just to be statistically on safe ground).

 

So why should a guy selling dope from behind a counter be any more Godlike? I can just imagine it becoming a job along the lines of working at McDonalds. But probably worse, because people would make unkind allusions to your reduced brain cell count.

[StinkMonkey]

Although there will always be some kind of black market. The reason the government should sell it is because then they can tax it and not dump billions into the war on drugs. This whole financial black hole could be avoided. 'Course the politicians would find yet another way to squander our tax dollars.

Keeping anything away from kids will always be a problem.

[Tone Taster]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

]Well.. because you elected them to make laws in the name of you, the people?

I am not sure if you are familiar w/American Jurisprudence, but the governments only function is SUPPOSED to be there to make sure people's Life, Liberty, and Property (LLP) not be harmed/damaged by another via contract dispute, torts, or capital/criminal offenses. That's it.

 

The court systems are only supposed to adjudicate contoversies regarding LLP violations

 

The laws cannot be written so as to restrict anyone from doing anything except for actions which would damage one's LLP in any manner

 

See the Legislative and Judicial Branch have to harmonize in this way

 

To write "don't do this" and "don't to that" statutes when they don't involve LLP violations, and then enforcing that written will and opinion through armed men because that's what you think, is repugnant to America's common law system.

 

Now, as far as electing people, I have dropped out.

I no longer participate in the POLITICAL level.

I participate in the LEGAL level. The only way to fight tyranny is to hammer these suckers in court and go after their equity somehow

 

Any way, as a side note; look at what category of crime drugs fit into according to the ATF.

 

Code of Federal Regulations

Title 27 Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms

PART 72DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY

• Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.
  

 

So if it's treated as commercial , which corporation(s) is a pot dealer competing with?

 

Did you know the UNITED STATES is a corporation?

• TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
  PART VI - PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS
  CHAPTER 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE[
  (15) "United States" means -
  (A) a Federal corporation;
  (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity
  of the United States; or
  © an instrumentality of the United States
  

 

Now, don't get me wrong.

 

If someone is on dope or dealing dope, and violates/damages one's LLP, then they should be punished for that violation and restore the people they harmed/damaged

 

However, they should not be penalized for a "vice" because of the written opinion backed by a gun

 

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Have THEY been elevated to a Godlike status?

[/QB]

Okay, I didn't mean the dealers being elevated. I meant the legislature being elevated to such. any time the People cede decision making regarding whether or not they should do/can do - can't do/shouldn't do to another, it makes the one allegedly "granting" this into a God

[Hardtail]

Holy Schnike! The thread about weed is larger than any other thread here.

 

Ah, musicians.

[Gifthorse]

Well methadone is legal for heroin addicts. It is very much the same as heroin and from what my recovering junkie friends tell me, all the guys going in to the clinics lie about their current level of addiction to get more methadone. Then they drive home or to thier jobs high on an opiate. Nobody pulls them over or questions it because hey, its legal and of course the government is only thinking of we the people.

 

The thing that suprised me the most was that methadone is 2 times more addictive than heroin. So once you start using it, you either go cold turkey or you use smack instead. Interesting revenue generater. It amazes me, that it is really a 'legalized' drug in a politically correct manner. It isn't called 'heroin' so it is ok. It is synthetic heroin for all practical purposes.

[EmptinesOf Youth]

kinda relatin to your last post Caputo, I dont think ill ever understand how a person can be punished for doing a drug. Doing something stupid on the drug, or to get the money for the drug sure. Put them behind bars. But if i want to sit in my house and get high, why is that bad? What gives people, or society, the right to punish me, and take time away from my life. After all time is precious. And if im not hurting anyone else, how is that fair? Puting the views of religion aside, nobody knows why were here. So if i want to get high in my own time, and only effect my life, why is that a problem?

[Dr. Ellwood]

Originally posted by EmptinessOFYouth:

kinda relatin to your last post Caputo, I dont think ill ever understand how a person can be punished for doing a drug. Doing something stupid on the drug, or to get the money for the drug sure. Put them behind bars. But if i want to sit in my house and get high, why is that bad? What gives people, or society, the right to punish me, and take time away from my life. After all time is precious. And if im not hurting anyone else, how is that fair? Puting the views of religion aside, nobody knows why were here. So if i want to get high in my own time, and only effect my life, why is that a problem?

I would agree with ya IF you could get the drug legally and not pay a dealer and put money in the scumbags pocket so he can buy big SUV's and park outside grade schools and hand out free samples to little kids! You pay your money to the dealer and he uses the money to buy what he wants and gets to sit in his scummy ass while everyone else is working for a living. Dealers and scum suckin ass hole bastards!!!

[EmptinesOf Youth]

i dont really live in an area where i encounter dealers like that but i completely agree. But if it wasnt a big deal, like cocaine and opiates in the early 1900's then i wouldnt need to buy it from them. Heck i could grow my own. Not that id really smoke that much, im a pretty lite user of anything. I think its the means people have to go through to get drugs which is the problem. I dont have kids but i understand that would be a huge concern. But isnt alcohol and smoking? An age requirement on the drugs would be a definate. I think thatd help prevent so many kids from trying them. Cause now, its illegal no matter what. But if they gotta wait a few years they might hold back.

[A String]

Originally posted by ellwood:

I would agree with ya IF you could get the drug legally and not pay a dealer and put money in the scumbags pocket so he can buy big SUV's and park outside grade schools and hand out free samples to little kids! You pay your money to the dealer and he uses the money to buy what he wants and gets to sit in his scummy ass while everyone else is working for a living. Dealers and scum suckin ass hole bastards!!!

And here in lies the problem. People will buy drugs; yet the folks who are opposed to legalization would prefer that the money goes to drug dealers and terrorists rather then to the government or private businesses.

 

Keep it all under the radar. If I can't see it, it doesn't exist. Now the problem has gotten so far out of hand that it is starting to show up on the radar. Rather then move it into the light so it can be controlled, they start a "War on drugs" to help push it back underground.

[skipclone 1]

Here`s another angle on the legalization issue. if it were raw opium gum ONLY that were legalized rather than heroin-well raw opium, despite still having a risk of physical addiction, is a rather mild narcotic that`s not entirely convenient to use, with a disctinctive, sweet taste and an aroma that.....er, never mind. The point is, if that were available in a legally controlled manner there wouldn`t be people dying from over doses and getting AIDS from needles. Same goes with coca leaves. They have been brewed in tea in the Andes for centuries to alleviate the effects of high altitude. Raw coca leaves-again a mild, natural plant substance that if it were available legally (they don`t keep well and aren`t conducive to illegal transport) would considerably lessen the appeal of cocaine. And think of what it would do for the popularity of places like Telluride, CO.

[Gifthorse]

I would agree with ya IF you could get the drug legally and not pay a dealer and put money in the scumbags pocket so he can buy big SUV's and park outside grade schools and hand out free samples to little kids! You pay your money to the dealer and he uses the money to buy what he wants and gets to sit in his scummy ass while everyone else is working for a living. Dealers and scum suckin ass hole bastards!!!

I just don't think most drug dealers do this. I mean when I was a kid I NEVER heard of or saw a drug dealer pushing drugs on me or anyone I knew. Part of the reason the drug dealers can make so much money is because the drugs are illegal. SO much of violent crimes are caused by addicts or drug dealers. So much theft is caused by addicts. This being the case, don't we empower the drug dealers on every end of the spectrum by making them illegal? I would rather tax the shit outta them and then fight the War on Drugs with the money generated from it. Educate families and kids, rehab addicts and counsel them etc. Maybe it could help us figure out why the richest most powerful country in the world can't provide affordable healthcare for its own people.

[Tone Taster]

Of course we can't just dismiss this as an easy "cut and dry" scenario. But look at the fruits of the Establishment.

 

Has voting solved the problem?

 

Have more laws/penalties/prison time solved the problem?

 

See, the problem is us, folk because we remain in ignorance to the law and how to intelligently defend ourselves from bureaucratic impositions.

Since we allow them to assign the term "illegal" or "legal" to marijuana use, they can, in theory "legalize" or "illegalize" purple shirts being worn on Tuesdays.

We have ceded control to a foreign power and left them to interpret or draft laws as they see fit WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

Remeber, drugs are designated as "commercial crimes" because the United States Corporation has a financial interest in them, too.

 

A dealer or user who didn't buy it from a "government legalized pot dealer" or get a prescription, is in commercial competition with the U.S.

 

Yes a Dealer who sells drugs to someone under the common law age of majority (18-21 years old) should be punished due to an age of consent issue.

 

Since we have allowed the Government to deal pot and jail people who deal pot "without their authorization", the crimes will continue. See, they make money off of the busts and the drugs, too and get more revenue; so this should curb any hope it will ever be legalized.

 

There is no contract between the Government and us, which can be entered in as court evidence, that they have a duty to protect individual people from drug use.

Can you sue the U.S. for failing to protect a school zone from drug dealers?

Why?

 

No contract, guys.

 

The courts are open for a redress of injury and/or restoration of a right lost-- PERIOD. That is the function of the judicial system. If more people learned how to challenge not only "don't do this/don't do that" laws such as drug use , but also validity of Driver's Licenses, Income Tax, etc. . , we will see change.

 

But as long as we just sit back and show up to the voting booths once every few years, and put stock in someone who is purporting to "represent" us, we will not see any effect. These so called "represenatives" are just looking for that D.C. gig so they can get in on the gravy train

 

Think about this. The Congressman gig in D.C. pays maybe 100-150K. These guys spend MILLIONS to get in. Don't you think that after they get their first year's salary, they're still in the hole?

They've gotta be making some duckets from some private interests, no doubt.

So some Pot farm pays off a "Congressman" to majically "legalize" pot for just them, because they are going to pay and share a cut w/the United states Municipal Corporation

 

The problem is always us and not them. Individual responsibility is it

[LPCustom]

Originally posted by Caputo:

If more people learned how to challenge not only "don't do this/don't do that" laws such as drug use , but also validity of Driver's Licenses, Income Tax, etc. . , we will see change.

Bad examples, Caputo.

 

1. We have to have a license to drive on public roads paid for by the taxpayers (us) but controlled by the government. It's one of the few things that government does that is actually sanctioned by the Constititution (provide post roads). Consequently, the government is well within its purview to regulate usage of the public roads. You do not need a driver's license to drive on private property. Only on the public roads. Initially you had to have a driver's license only to prove you could actually drive a vehicle and knew the rules of the road so that you would not pose a danger to other drivers.

 

2. The Federal and State income taxes, while widely and IMHO rightfully hated, are in fact legal under the U.S. Constitution because of the 16th amendment which allowed direct taxes on the populace. It was a black day when that amendment was passed and ratified. Did you know that no cap was put on the level of taxation in that amendment because it was deemed at the time that a 1 percent cap was too high.

 

Of course, most people don't know that the income tax has been levied by the IRS since 1893 even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Internal Revenue Code was unconstitutional in 1895. The IRS didn't care and kept assessing the taxes anyway. An income tax was also levied during the Civil War. The Supreme Court even let it stand through what can only be called ridiculous (and judicially irresponsible) reasoning.

 

Here's a history of the 16th amendment for those that are interested.

[Tone Taster]

Through Much research I have seen that the DL and registering your car only applies to commercial drivers and that the Income Tax is only applicable to U.S. Citizens and not State nationals.

 

The 14th Amendment created a "Federal Citizenship" under the guise of abolishing slavery; which made people subject to the will of D.C.. This subjugation was something unprecedented prior to the civil war.

 

Once one corrects their Nationality, and provides a decent record of it, they have more standing in court to challenge the imposition of an income tax or DL. This is by no means a majic bullet, but in my opinion, the right thing to do in light of how the wool has been pulled over our eyes since 1868.

 

As it stands, you are correct that U.S. citizens need a DL and have to pay an income tax (which has been proven to only pay interest off on the national debt, which "represenatives" run up the tab on)

 

Once this New body politic was formed, it enabled D.C. to enact legislation based more on usurpation of the states, but not according to law (Article I Sec 8 clause 17)

 

With One centralized power, this enabled the legislature to enact private law, which has managed to incorporate all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto:

 

Let's Walk through the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto:

 

• PLANK 1
  Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
  

 

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868),

zoning, school & property taxes.

Bureau of Land Management.

 

• PLANK 2
  A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  

 

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes.

 

But some call it their "fair share"

 

• PLANK 3
  Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  

 

OR, it's Federal & State estate Tax (1916), reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. Doesn't seem anty different

 

• PLANK 4
  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  

 

We call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);

Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

 

• PLANK 5
  Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  

 

What is the Federal Reserve ?

Please explain how IT IS NOT a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913.

IS YOUR local bank a members of the Fed system?

IS IT regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)?

 

• PLANK 6
  Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
  

 

What is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

The Department of Transportation (DOT)?

The ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations?

 

• PLANK 7
  Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  

 

Why not tack on the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations?

 

• PLANK 8
  Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  

 

The Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor.

The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family.

Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Fedral Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

 

• PLANK 9
  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
  

 

The Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

 

• PLANK 10
  Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
  

 

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education"

[Gruupi]

I have heard the arguement made that alot of the drug laws are made to keep minorities down. While some of those arguements are a stretch, it sure does seem like there are an awefull lot of minorities in jail for drug crimes. Supposedly, the drugs that are more prevelant in minority communities carry stiffer penalties than so called "white" drugs. With the 3 strikes your out rule, this takes on some rather sinister overtones. I am sure some of this is blown out of proportion but it does have some semblance of truth behind it, even if it is only coincidental.

 

I have several accaintances who have been arrested for possesion and even dealing. None of them have done any jail time (except for the the few hours till thier daddies bailed them out). I am sure affluence played just as big a part as race did, but it sure makes me think.

[Warthog]

This is a silly topic. Why is everyone talking about something that's illegal as if it's such a great thing. Drug purchases are a tax on morons.

 

Here come the spears!

[skipclone 1]

You heard perhaps of the guy-I think it was in Louisiana or Texas-11 years for a joint. He was a white guy.

It is interesting what has happened since the 70s-the price of cocaine/crack has dropped while that of weed has skyrocketed. And this after most of the supply started coming from domestic sources.

[Gruupi]

Hehe Warthog. I like your way of thinking. Drug purchases are kind of like a moron tax. The only bad thing is that instead of that tax going into the coffers to help pay for things we all vote for and need, they go into the hands of criminals.

 

I know so many people that are casual drug users that live from paycheck to paycheck. They say they can never afford to buy new guitars and can barely make rent. But thier drug or alchohol budget sure doesn't suffer.

[Warthog]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

Hehe Warthog. I like your way of thinking. Drug purchases are kind of like a moron tax. The only bad thing is that instead of that tax going into the coffers to help pay for things we all vote for and need, they go into the hands of criminals.

 

I know so many people that are casual drug users that live from paycheck to paycheck. They say they can never afford to buy new guitars and can barely make rent. But thier drug or alchohol budget sure doesn't suffer.

Just trying to ruffle some feathers...no offense intended to nay particulat person. I just know a few folks who are like the ones you describe...and they're always trying to argue why drugs should be legal while they continue to ruin their lives. My sister has done it and she's 38 now, living at home, unable to move on. Me, I've never tried them and don't intend to. I'd rather not lose my job not to mention the fact that it's illegal and harmful to my body. How many 50 year-old drug users do you know who are healthy? That's what I thought, they all look like they're 90 years old. I've got better things to worry about than getting high.

[skipclone 1]

driving over the speed limit is illegal.

I do it but I can stop anytime.

[A String]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

driving over the speed limit is illegal.

I do it but I can stop anytime.

[A String]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

I have heard the arguement made that alot of the drug laws are made to keep minorities down. While some of those arguements are a stretch, it sure does seem like there are an awefull lot of minorities in jail for drug crimes. Supposedly, the drugs that are more prevelant in minority communities carry stiffer penalties than so called "white" drugs. With the 3 strikes your out rule, this takes on some rather sinister overtones. I am sure some of this is blown out of proportion but it does have some semblance of truth behind it, even if it is only coincidental.

 

I have several accaintances who have been arrested for possesion and even dealing. None of them have done any jail time (except for the the few hours till thier daddies bailed them out). I am sure affluence played just as big a part as race did, but it sure makes me think.

I think the minority issue is a matter of having nothing else to turn to. You can't afford an education. You can't afford a house. The jobs are all part time, minimum wage ($1000 a month or less). The cost of living is freakishly high. Average rent (here anyway), is $900 a month (if you are lucky enough to find a place).

 

How is a person supposed to survive? Society doesn't care about these people and they are cast aside. Their options are, get two or three crappy jobs and spend their lives working seven days a week making less in a month then most people make in a week, or sell drugs.

 

I wish people could see that the harder they push to keep the poor "out of view", the more crime and corruption they create.

[A String]

Originally posted by Warthog:

This is a silly topic. Why is everyone talking about something that's illegal as if it's such a great thing. Drug purchases are a tax on morons.

 

Here come the spears!

Really? That's your argument?

 

We are talking about something that's illegal as if it's a great thing, because it's a great thing that shouldn't be illegal.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Warthog:

...and they're always trying to argue why drugs should be legal while they continue to ruin their lives.

Yeah, but you're failing to take into account the huge numbers of people who have perfectly OK lives and have the occasional joint or line of whatever. ie people who DO have a life and are NOT junkies.

 

There's quite a lot of us out there, you know.