T1B

Darwin has been slacking lately...but a 3 fer ?? That is outstanding...




http://www.katu.com/news/local/40479502.html

[simplisticthinking]let's legalize drugs and these things will not happen[/simplisticthinking]
Scary thought for travelers---some folks set up their meth labs in rented motel rooms.

Darwin hit paydirt on that one but just missed making the "Bonus Round."

I wonder what the over/under is on how fast "shitball-o-fire" Jared Allen is back making Meth again? The good news is he got fragged in the asssult and that might just slow his brewing schedule down a notch or two .

Years ago when I lived in Western Wa, some old farts left the pilot light on in their RV and when old dude went to fill it with gas, blew himself, his OL, his RV and the gas station to kingdom fucking come. I thought the same thing had happened when I saw the headline but this far exceeded my expectations-hopefully Jared will linger painfully for a few days like the Spanish rapist asshole did.

Wolfman wrote:[simplisticthinking]let's legalize drugs and these things will not happen[/simplisticthinking]

Strawman much you stupid pile of fuckchips?

Scary thought for travelers---some folks set up their meth labs in rented motel rooms.

All the more reason to keep it illegal eh?

Dolt.

Okay, exactly what is a fuckchip? Whatever it is, I'm stealing that one...

Moving Sale wrote:

Wolfman wrote:[simplisticthinking]let's legalize drugs and these things will not happen[/simplisticthinking]

Strawman much you stupid pile of fuckchips?

Scary thought for travelers---some folks set up their meth labs in rented motel rooms.

All the more reason to keep it illegal eh?

Dolt.

Actually gotta agree with dipshit on this one, wolfie. Make the shit legal and these kinda asswhipes are less likely to get kilt brewing themselves, not that that's a bad thing.

I'm for legalizing every last bit of that shit and slapping a decent sized tax on it.

Chuck D will still get his, but he'd have to work for it a bit.

So, will we have more or less drug addicts if we legalize drugs? And if the answer is more, the government will surely feel the obligation to take care of the addicted...dont you think?

Trampis wrote:So, will we have more or less drug addicts if we legalize drugs? And if the answer is more, the government will surely feel the obligation to take care of the addicted...dont you think?

Users? Yes, we will likely have more users. I suspect however that we might have more recreational weekend type users that are still functioning members of society.

More worthless addicts that are a leech on society?

Dunno.

What I do know is that the product quality would be better. Druggies would atleast know what the fukk they were taking, which, potentially means they might have better control over it.

Another fact which is undisputable is that a very large chunk of the prison population could be turned out to become productive members of society. Some wouldn't, ofcourse, but, they wouldn't have a booming black market trade to return to. If they wanted to peddle shit, they'd have to buy a 7-11 to do it from.

Would the gubmint take care of them? Sure. And they'd have a sizable tax base of users to finance it.

We really need to stop treating it any differently than alcohol. We learned our fukking lesson with booze nearly 80 years ago. When will we apply it to other drugs?

smackaholic wrote:

Trampis wrote:So, will we have more or less drug addicts if we legalize drugs? And if the answer is more, the government will surely feel the obligation to take care of the addicted...dont you think?

Users? Yes, we will likely have more users. I suspect however that we might have more recreational weekend type users that are still functioning members of society.

Does anybody really think that there's a whole shitload of people somewhere who want [insert name of drug here] but don't know where to get it, and by making it legal they all of a sudden would know where to get it?

Any high scool kid who wants to buy dope can already get as much as he can pay for and get it in no more than a couple of hours.

Cuda wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Trampis wrote:So, will we have more or less drug addicts if we legalize drugs? And if the answer is more, the government will surely feel the obligation to take care of the addicted...dont you think?

Users? Yes, we will likely have more users. I suspect however that we might have more recreational weekend type users that are still functioning members of society.

Does anybody really think that there's a whole shitload of people somewhere who want [insert name of drug here] but don't know where to get it, and by making it legal they all of a sudden would know where to get it?

Any high scool kid who wants to buy dope can already get as much as he can pay for and get it in no more than a couple of hours.

If it was legal, it would be cheaper. This would increase use some. There are also some folks out there that don't cross that line, but, would, if it was erased.

Fukk'em, I say. The fukking herd needs culling anyhow.

If ever there was a comparison to the fall of Rome, it's the legalization of all drugs.

Never tried, never will.

The one bright spot is that more people would be taking themselves out of consideration for jobs. Being a druggie ain't a protected class, so employers would still be able to use drug tests to screen potential appplicants.

Uh, Dumbshit, ALL drugs were legal up until about 90 years ago. Nobody believed the government had any constitutional power to prohibit them. Prohibition- both of alcohol and drugs- was a notion invented by "Progressives", who were, and still are, totalitarian enemies of liberty.

So we should do away with all laws in the name of preserving liberty? Nice take, anarchist dumbfuck.

Nobody said anything about ALL laws, dumbass.

Naturally, you fancy yourself a progressive, don't you?

Diego in Seattle wrote:If ever there was a comparison to the fall of Rome, it's the legalization of all drugs.

Never tried, never will.

The one bright spot is that more people would be taking themselves out of consideration for jobs. Being a druggie ain't a protected class, so employers would still be able to use drug tests to screen potential appplicants.

don't be so sure of that. the federal gubmint is gifted in the ways of bestowing protective rights on worthless fukkers.

I see it at work. We have this lazy fat pathetic fukk that absolutely can't make it to work on time. Hell, he couldn't make it to work even close to on time. He worked on my team. After documenting his tardiness ad nauseum, I finally was able to persuade my manager to move him. My sackless manager, rather than just firing his sorry ass, had him fill out FMLA paper work.

You see, he has a sleep disorder. It ain't his fault. He went through testing and was diagnosed as fat, basically. He wasn't sleeping due to apnea. His smoking lowers his lung functioning, which aggravates it further.

So now that he has his stay out of the unemployment line free card, he no longer shows up at 6:45- 7 O'clock. We are supposed to be there at 6. Nope, now he comes in 8 or 9. Last week he showed up at 10:15, 2 days in a row. Hasn't lost an ounce and still smokes.

Of course, the sackless manager has been demoted back down to the minors and the acting manager is the department director from ElDorado Hills, Ca. This dude infact has a sack and ain't afraid to use it, so I suspect he will find a way to shit can the worthless fukk.

If drugs are legalized, you can damn well bet some fukkers will figure out a way to call it an illness and get job protection.

You're the dumbfuck who implied that prohibition is anti-liberty. Is prohibition of rpg's anti-liberty as well?

Cuda wrote:Nobody said anything about ALL laws, dumbass.

Naturally, you fancy yourself a progressive, don't you?

Sure he is. He's one of the shit stains that think gubmint has business telling you what substances you can put in your body, because, afterall, it's for the good of society.

They swung and missed on alcohol. They won't really go after tobacco as it is too big a cash cow. They think that everything else should be illegal as well and they want to specify severity of penalties to make it more fair.

Just remember, coods, it's all for the children.

Why do you hate the children?

Diego in Seattle wrote:You're the dumbfuck who implied that prohibition is anti-liberty. Is prohibition of rpg's anti-liberty as well?

Can you blow up a humvee with a crack rock?

Please don't go TiVO with brainless arguements on us, pedo. I thought you were brighter than that. Not much mind you. Just a little.

Van wrote:Okay, exactly what is a fuckchip?

Little help here, Jsc?

Sorry to go Dins on you here but this one bugs...

Trampis wrote:So, will we have more or less drug addicts if we legalize drugs?

Fewer F-E-W-E-R Fewer

Van wrote:Okay, exactly what is a fuckchip?

Got a mirror?

Cuda wrote:Uh, Dumbshit, ALL drugs were legal up until about 90 years ago.

Trivia alert!

The 1st drug law (all be it local) is 133 years old.

"On November 15, 1875, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to keep or frequent opium dens."
Yes THAT San Francisco.

Papa Willie wrote:

I always figured TVO had a secret boyfriend