It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anything to be elected

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Ox
As I said in a most earlier on in this thread.. Drinking doesnt affect someone else..
yes it does in certain cases for sure, happens often actually.

If youre drinking at a table and I'm not.. I'm not being affected..

and if some one had puffed a blunt, I dont think it would be much different other then maybe the smoke. That may bother some people, so in this instance yes, it may bother people. Only because the drink doesn't give off smoke, not because of the substance.

you are.. If youre in a restaurant... and someone lights a joint for an after dinner smoke.. and its affecting you, would that be ok?

If the restaurant allows it, and I don't like it, I have the right to never return to the restaurant. If the restaurant doesn't allow smoking, then maybe the smoker never returns. either way, laws aren't created because it bothers you, they are created to protect your rights.

if your kids are there.. is that ok?

no more Ok then my kids being around a drunken alcoholic.

If your school bus driver smokes on the bus on the way to pick up your kids.. or waiting while the kids are on a field trip?? I dont think so..

and if he was drinking, or even taking some sort of medication that causes him impaired judgement, I wouldn't be ok with it. I of course wouldn't let my child on the bus if I were aware he had been smoking. But I wouldn't go making a law against it, I would simply protest it on a community level. if nobody uses the busses, that guy gets fired, new bus driver.

If that second hand smoke affects you.. even minutely and you're given a random drug test at work and lose your job..

if thats the jobs policy, then thats the jobs policy. If they will absolutely not allow it, even given the circumstances, then that may end up being the jobs loss. How many people would come in slightly effected, probably alot of people. But yea, have you ever been fired for drinking alcohol? the reason you get tested, is because its illegal. If you high on the job, they will notice without a test.

Would you change your mind on legalization?

no, it would be the jobs loss as much as mine. I would find another job with another company. Maybe that company wouldn't mess up and fire a good worker simply because there were traces of weed in my system. Again its you employer, they can fire you for whatever reason they want.

Then you would say.. well it has to be regulated..

no I wouldn't

ok.. people break regulations on a daily basis.. drinking is regulated.. Youre not allowed to drive while you've been drinking OR while you ARE drinking... How many DUI arrests are made daily? how many open container arrests are made daily? Quite a few..

so in other words, we should get rid of drinking regulations? I agree. And when the irresponsible dirtbag kills a person, he can go to jail for a long term of his life, or all of it.

Its about responsiblity. No more excuses. "o I was drunk" or "o I was high" nope, you killed some one, your done. Government isnt your babysitter, if you f'up, thats your own fault. No one forced that drink or that blunt. Your fault, you knew better.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:03 PM
in other words, greyhound bus has every right to screen for every drug. If you don't like it, don't work for them. If enough people do that, grey hound won't last. If you don't like the fact grey hound bus employees were high for example, don't ride their busses, and if you care that much, start protests. Get a bunch of people together to boycott it. The business will be forced to drug test and fire those using drugs, which is the companies right to do.

As far as outside of business goes, responsiblity is the key word. If some one is acting irresponsible and some one dies because of it, that person gets hit with murder, plain and simple.


posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Ox
Some Greyhound driver is smoking heroin...

You sound a lot like president bush, long on hypothetical arguments rationalizing your position, but short on truth & facts. How can you rail so strongly against the tactics of the bush administration, while using the same tactics yourself?

The Drug War Clock shows the running total of dollars expended on the 'drug war' by federal and state governments. This amounted to 19 billion dollars in 2003 or $600 per second. But the failed 'drug war' not only drains our tax dollars, it also corrupts our legal system. If those that enforce on laws are corrupt, then we in essense have no laws for anybody. The only defense for an individual in such a corrupt system is to be wealthy enough to hire legal talent or bribe the cops. Guilt or innocence is meaningless.

The massive dollar cost of the 'drug war' is real, as is the corruption it brings. As for your greyhound driver, all he/she needs to do is payoff the drug warriors and he/she could operate a meth lab on the bus without any risk of arrest.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Ox
Some Greyhound driver is smoking heroin...

How did we get to "smoking heroin"? I thought this was about May Jane?


posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:05 PM
When someone doesn't understand the issue, it's easy to mix things up.

Marijuana... heroin... hydogen oxide. It's all the same you know.

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:46 AM
I realize this is a useless argument, because users, in general, are blind to the issues, be it alcoholics, smokers, or drug users...but I'll chip in with my thoughts.

First off, in the comparison to cigarettes: For anyone who is a non-smoker, think of all the places you go that you come in contact with other's smoke. This is a particularly strong issue for me, as I am violently allergic to cigarette smoke. At the doorways or at least near the entrances of EVERY public building...on every street...basically anywhere not regulated, and a heck of a lot of places that are regulated. Now, if pot were legalized, you would come in contact with it in all the same places. Two considerations there: One, the physical effect implications. If you head to the bar, guess you're getting high tonight, too, arent you? Two, the workplace implications. Companies will never drop drug testing; rather, it will continue to grow. Why? Because an impaired worker is a useless worker. And, boys and girls, check up on your facts involving the effects of pot use beyond the peak high. If you smoke it daily, dont come work for me, because you'll be impaired, to a point, at all times, not just when you've recently smoked it.

Secondly, the comparison to alcohol. I don't agree that hard alcohol has any business being legal. Why? Because its not usually the guy who had some beers who has a negative effect on society. Its the guy who had 10 shots at the bar last night. But thats another issue. What the issue is, however, is as another poster said. If you have a drink within my proximity, it does not effect me in any way. Your actions because of it may effect me, but your consumption does not. However, if you are next to me, and light up a blunt, guess what? It will effect me, too. And there, boys and girls, is the difference. Society, as a whole, is not accepting of irresponsible actions in public places that effect others in close proximity. Never will be. Why do you think smoking in restaurants has been made illegal in so many places? You might say, "Oh, but it was legal before..." but the effects of smoking were not common knowledge at the time, either, just as the effects of drug use and alcohol abuse are still not common knowledge. (Most people have at best a hazy and general idea of these subjects. Most think it won't hurt them at all.)

As for the legal processing of offenders...the solution is rather easy. Don't lessen the punishment. The problem is that the punishment is already insufficient. (The same for DUI, etc.) Rather, up the ante. You get hit with possession? how's five years do you? How many people do you think would become users, with those kind of consequences? Kill someone drunk driving? Hello lethal injection. Problem solved. If you're too stupid to act responsible, do we really need you around? And for those crying about regulating what people do in private...tell often do you hear of someone's house getting busted into because they lit up a blunt? No, they get busted because they are in PUBLIC with these illegal substances. Not in their homes.

What it comes down to, though, is that the users and abusers are, and will always be, blind to the issues, for a variety of reasons. It is just the way the human psyche works. That is why some of the most notorious murders and the like throughout history couldnt even see, with something that major, just what was wrong with their actions. Once you form a psychological addiction (which any thing done regularly, habitually, becomes, even things like going to work,) it becomes very difficult for the addict to be objective enough to grasp the scope of the issue and the implications of their actions. If it were easy, what would we have Betty Ford for?

(edited for typos...bleh)

[edit on 9/19/2006 by saturnine_sweet]

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:52 AM
Saturnine, your position is well-worn, it's been held up by many, and always without any thought given to the viability of the notion.

In countries where the death penalty is applied to smugglers, and casual users can receive severe punishments, the drug trade and drug culture is neither reduced nor eliminated.

Punishments are not the answer to reducing demand, that has been tried over and over again, and it continues to fail our societies. How many times are we gonna bang our head on the same low-hanging nail before we learn better? Education is the only way to reduce demand.

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:19 AM
it seems many are overlooking the most obvious reason pot in particular will never be legal...which i find odd on a conspiracy site.

there is no money in it for the govt. thats it. as long as its illegal they can continue to confiscate everything a guy/gal owns if they get caught growing or transporting it. with the little guy, there are fines they can assess, but face it, those can add up. just like parking tickets.

now i KNOW everyone is thinking...oh, but they can tax it like they do tobacco and alchohol. true...but, not everyone can grow their own tobacco or brew their own booze (well good booze anyway) but any halfwit can go get stuff to grow their own pot plants. so, if its legal, even teh tiny trickle of cash they do have drys up overnight.

if they could find a way to tax it, it would be legal tomorrow.

maybe what the smokers need is a good lobby in congress lol

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Damocles]

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:20 AM
saturnine sweet:
your arguement is the same as the ones before. If will effect me if I go here, it will effect me if I want to do this. Problem is, who cares? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean we can ban it. I don't like cigarette smoke in know what I do....I don't go back to those restaurants (before the ban at least). Eventually one restaurant is going to make its policy no smoking, and thats fine, thats their policy, and they can make that policy.

another thing, how many stoners do you know? I know quite a few, and no it doesn't effect them when they aren't high. If they come into school high, they will get in trouble. I know a stoner that is one of the smartest kids in my school out of this huge school. He is in the top classes, with straight A's. He smokes responsibly. He does his homework, gets high, then passes out. Whats the problem with that?

If your work doesn't like that you smoke weed even if you aren't at work high, then so be it. Its your CHOICE to smoke or not, you take the responsibility.

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:56 PM
It seems that Kinky is going to go down in flames...

you cant try to edge in on the governments rights to sell illegal drugs and get away with it...

CIA biggest profiteer on drug smuggling across world
Not convinced that this is a self created corrupt govermment program yet?

try these...
CIA and others cause drug smuggling efforts to succeed

or :
more on the connection to US leaders and drug smuggling.

so anyone who continues to spout BS about how bad drugs are, then why do you continue to live in country whos very government sells the drugs, and busts you for buying them...
doesn't that sound silly? then why are they doing it?


posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:22 PM
Well.. .maybe.. Just because the government is the biggest importer of illicit drugs in the galaxy, doesnt mean he will go down in flames.. what if he is able to legalize it.. Then the national defecit drops a few million over night with some major corporations in Texas buying up large quantities

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:03 PM
Well he's right. We are filling our prisons up with people who would be better off in a half way house than locked up, or better yet unharrassed period. The best way of getting organized crime out of drugs is to legalize them and sell them through licensed places like ABC stores and then use the money for education and rehab. Legalize drugs and organized crime will promptly disappear as a source for drugs and will go into politics.


posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:26 AM
It seems that Kinky Friedman is serious about his run for Texas Governor. Even if no one else is.

Kinky and his "Political soulmate" Jesse Ventura toured Texas College's monday defending racial remarks Kinky made in the 80's at a comedy club..

Yahoo news

Kinky has also hired Dean Barkley who directed Jesse Ventura's campaign, to do the same for his..

Dean Barkley, who directed Ventura's successful campaign and is serving in the same capacity with Friedman, said the attacks showed the Perry campaign was "getting pretty desperate."

n San Antonio on Monday, Friedman and Ventura drew enthusiastic crowds, filling a 350-seat campus auditorium to standing room, leaving several hundred others unable to get in.

It seems he's drawing quite the crowd... and somewhat of a following... Either that or people wanted to see if the rumours of Jesse Ventura looking like a homeless person were true.. (No offence to the homeless)

"I've seen him in social settings and how he is with people," said Courtney Laurell, 22. "He's very down to earth.

Well.. what can you say.. looks like this has gone from something that I originally saw as a joke.. to something that might have a chance.. albeit a slim one, at winning..

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in