Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Crimes, criminals and the justice system
not4u13
Posts: 5473
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby not4u13 » Sun May 09, 2010 5:51 am

Brooke wrote: See above. I already proved that marijuana is harmful - go back and read the thread. I am not going to repeat it just because you are pretending to have a memory lapse and because you like to hash everything to death.


You haven't proven anything. You did a copy/paste of an article that made several statements about what they thought or suspected could happen based on some testing, but there was no proof of anything by you or anyone else.

My point about alcohol is that as a consumed beverage, there is absolutely no other use for it other than personal enjoyment. It is a mood altering substance. Some people enjoy the various varieties. In that respect, alcohol and marijuana are no different.

As for your statement about other substances that help medically in the same way as marijuana, the fact is, there just isn't anything quite as effective. Especially for cancer patients undergoing chemo. That very argument is how the medical marijuana statutes were allowed to hold up in court. If you have proof of such other substances (other than your own supposition), please elighten us.


Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Brooke » Mon May 10, 2010 11:57 am

not4u13 wrote:You haven't proven anything. You did a copy/paste of an article that made several statements about what they thought or suspected could happen based on some testing, but there was no proof of anything by you or anyone else.
Really?


marijuana: facts for teens

Q: What are the short-term effects of marijuana use?

A: The short-term effects of marijuana include:

* problems with memory and learning (11);
* distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch) (6);
* trouble with thinking and problem solving (5);
* loss of motor coordination; and
* increased heart rate.

Effects can be unpredictable, especially when other drugs are mixed with marijuana.

Q: Does marijuana affect school, sports, or other activities?

A: It can. Marijuana affects memory, judgment, and perception (11). The drug can make you mess up in school, in sports or clubs, or with your friends. If you’re high on marijuana, you are more likely to make mistakes that could embarrass or even hurt you. If you use marijuana a lot, you could start to lose interest in how you look and how you’re getting along at school or work.

Athletes could find their performance is off; timing, movements, and coordination are all affected by THC. Also, since marijuana can affect judgment and decisionmaking, its use can lead to risky sexual behavior, resulting in exposure to sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Q: What are the long-term effects of marijuana use?

A: Findings so far show that regular use of marijuana or THC may play a role in some kinds of cancer and in problems with the respiratory and immune systems.


* Cancer
It’s hard to know for sure whether marijuana use alone causes cancer, because many people who smoke marijuana also smoke cigarettes and use other drugs. But it is known that marijuana smoke contains some of the same, and sometimes even more, of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per day may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day (15) .

* Lungs and airways
People who smoke marijuana often develop the same kinds of breathing problems that cigarette smokers have: coughing and wheezing. They tend to have more chest colds than nonusers. They are also at greater risk of getting lung infections like pneumonia.

* Immune system
Our immune system protects the body from many agents that cause disease. It is not certain whether marijuana damages the immune system of people, but both animal and human studies have shown that marijuana impairs the ability of T-cells in the lungs' immune systemm to fight off some infections.

Q: Does marijuana lead to the use of other drugs?

A: Long-term studies of high school students and their patterns of drug use show that very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana (7). For example, the risk of using cocaine is much greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it. Using marijuana puts children and teens in contact with people who are users and sellers of other drugs. So there is more of a risk that a marijuana user will be exposed to and urged to try more drugs.

To better determine this risk, scientists are examining the possibility that long-term marijuana use may create changes in the brain that make a person more at risk of becoming addicted to other drugs, such as alcohol or cocaine. Although many young people who use marijuana do not go onto use other drugs, further research is needed to determine who will be at greatest risk.

Q: How can you tell if someone has been using marijuana?

A: If someone is high on marijuana, he or she might


* seem dizzy and have trouble walking;
* seem silly and giggly for no reason;
* have very red, bloodshot eyes; and
* have a hard time remembering things that just happened.

When the early effects fade, over a few hours, the user can become very sleepy.

Q: Is marijuana sometimes used as a medicine?

A: There has been much talk about the possible medical use of marijuana.
Under U.S. law since 1970, marijuana has been a Schedule I controlled substance. This means that the drug, at least in its smoked form, has no commonly accepted medical use.

THC, the active chemical in marijuana, is manufactured into a pill available by prescription that can be used to treat the nausea and vomiting that occur with certain cancer treatments and to help AIDS patients eat more to keep up their weight. Scientists are studying whether THC, and related chemicals in marijuana (called cannabinoids) may have other medical uses. Because of the adverse effects of smoking marijuana, research on other cannabinoids appears more promising for the development of new medications.

Q: How does marijuana affect driving?

A: Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving:
alertness, concentration, coordination, and reaction time. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road.

Marijuana may play a role in car accidents. In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine (1). Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink (8).

Q: If a woman is pregnant and smokes marijuana, will it hurt the baby?

A: Doctors advise pregnant women not to use any drugs because they could harm the growing fetus.
Although one animal study has linked marijuana use to loss of the fetus very early in pregnancy, two studies in humans found no association between marijuana use and early pregnancy loss. More research is necessary to fully understand the effects of marijuana use on pregnancy outcome.

Studies in children born to mothers who used marijuana have shown increased behavioral problems during infancy and preschool years. In school, these children are more likely to have problems with decisionmaking, memory, and the ability to remain attentive(2).

Researchers are not certain whether health problems that may be caused by early exposure to marijuana will remain as the child grows into adulthood. However, since some parts of the brain continue to develop throughout adolescence, it is also possible that certain kinds of problems may appear as the child matures.

Q: What does marijuana do to the brain?

A: Some studies show that when people have smoked large amounts of marijuana for years, the drug takes its toll on mental functions (4). Heavy or daily use of marijuana affects the parts of the brain that control memory, attention, and learning. A working short-term memory is needed to learn and perform tasks that call for more than one or two steps.

Smoking marijuana causes some changes in the brain that are like those caused by cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. Scientists are still learning about the many ways that marijuana can affect the brain.

Q: Can people become addicted to marijuana?

A: Yes. Long-term marijuana use leads to addiction in some people. That is, they cannot control their urges to seek out and use marijuana, even though it negatively affects their family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities (9). According to one study, marijuana use by teenagers who have prior antisocial problems can quickly lead to addiction (3). In addition, some frequent, heavy marijuana users develop “tolerance” to its effects. This means they need larger and larger amounts of marijuana to get the same desired effects as they used to get from smaller amounts.

Q: What if a person wants to quit using the drug?

A: In 2004, over 298,000 people entering drug treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse. However, up until a few years ago, it was hard to find treatment programs specifically for marijuana users.

Now researchers are testing different ways to help marijuana users abstain from drug use. There are currently no medications for treating marijuana addiction. Treatment programs focus on counseling and group support systems. There are also a number of programs designed especially to help teenagers who are abusers. Family doctors can be a good source for information and help when dealing with marijuana problems.
http://www.nih.gov/

The information above is information contained in a booklet for teens (something responsible parents would seek out and give to their children) published by the National Institutes of Health. Here you are, a parent, advocating for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. I think there is definitely something wrong with this picture.

not4u wrote:My point about alcohol is that as a consumed beverage, there is absolutely no other use for it other than personal enjoyment. It is a mood altering substance. Some people enjoy the various varieties. In that respect, alcohol and marijuana are no different.
What hogwash! Make a list of the ways in how alcohol can be used and how marijuana can be used and the alcohol side will be much greater.
not4u wrote:As for your statement about other substances that help medically in the same way as marijuana, the fact is, there just isn't anything quite as effective. Especially for cancer patients undergoing chemo. That very argument is how the medical marijuana statutes were allowed to hold up in court. If you have proof of such other substances (other than your own supposition), please elighten us.

Excuse me! I don't think I said other chemicals can be used to help medically in the same way as marijuana. Aren't you sneaky?
I didn't say that. Marijuana is relatively new on the scene. There are lots of other drugs to help with pain relief and nausea.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Brooke » Mon May 10, 2010 12:02 pm

Brooke wrote: Why would anyone in their right mind want to legalize a substance whose only purpose is to alter the mind?

Fordama wrote:Some folks need to seriously have their mind altered.

Fordama
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
AsIfYouKnew
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby AsIfYouKnew » Mon May 10, 2010 12:03 pm

not4u13 wrote: ...

We pass laws all the time that attempt to protect us from ourselves. I am against all of them.
Helmet laws
Seatbelt laws
Requirements that we place on product manufacturing to prevent people from doing dumb things

Our government has a history of doing too much to regulate our behaviors under the guise of protecting us.

Enough already.


The laws you noted protect us from others, not from ourselves. The same argument could be made against marijuana, but you would have to extend it to alcohol as well.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

http://www.civilityinamerica.org/en/index.html

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Brooke » Mon May 10, 2010 12:04 pm

Brooke wrote: There are plenty of good reasons not to legalize marijuana. Take a look at the information posted below from the ADA.


tLIB wrote:I agree. But IMO there are more reasons to not prohibit it.


I should have answered this by saying that tLIB, you should start counting because there are lots more reasons not to legalize it than to legalize it.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18023
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Fordama » Mon May 10, 2010 12:05 pm

Brooke wrote:marijuana: facts for teens

Here's a fact for teens--nobody is going to legalize it for them.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

not4u13
Posts: 5473
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby not4u13 » Mon May 10, 2010 12:09 pm

AsIfYouKnew wrote:
The laws you noted protect us from others, not from ourselves. The same argument could be made against marijuana, but you would have to extend it to alcohol as well.


Most of what my point is about is that marijuana, tobacco and alchohol are fairly equivalent in many ways. Two of those products are legal and one is not. There doesn't seem to be a valid argument to keep marijuana illegal given what we know about it, compared to these other two legal substances.

As far as helmet laws and seatbelt laws in particular. How are those laws protecting us from others? The only reason they are there is to force you to practice safe behavior for yourself.

Believe me, I've heard the "public health expense" argument countless times and it just doesn't wash. We are talking about an individual here ... who makes a personal choice ... regarding their personal safety.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Brooke » Mon May 10, 2010 12:18 pm

Brooke wrote:marijuana: facts for teens

Fordama wrote:Here's a fact for teens--nobody is going to legalize it for them.

Fordama

Do you mean that if it is legalized they won't be able to obtain it easier than they do with it illegal? :eh?:
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18023
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Fordama » Mon May 10, 2010 12:25 pm

Brooke wrote:Do you mean that if it is legalized they won't be able to obtain it easier than they do with it illegal? :eh?:
I guess their parents could buy it for them. However, it is plenty easy right now.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Brooke » Mon May 10, 2010 12:30 pm

not4u13 wrote:Most of what my point is about is that marijuana, tobacco and alchohol are fairly equivalent in many ways. Two of those products are legal and one is not. There doesn't seem to be a valid argument to keep marijuana illegal given what we know about it, compared to these other two legal substances.
There are plenty of valid arguments to keep marijuana illegal as I just posted from the NIH.

not4u wrote:As far as helmet laws and seatbelt laws in particular. How are those laws protecting us from others? The only reason they are there is to force you to practice safe behavior for yourself.

I believe those laws were made to attract the attention of parents or adults in charge of minors with regard to their safety. There are plenty of adults who disregard safety precautions for themselves who are forced or at least have to give a thought to the safety of minors in their care. In my view, it really doesn't matter if Adult Joe Podunk wants to drive without a seat belt or ride his motorcycle without a helmet, if he wants to take a chance on injuring or killing himself then it is his choice, but it is entirely different when he is taking care of a baby or child.

That is really who the laws are for. It also forces adults to explain to their children why they must be buckled in when riding in a vehicle. Such as people who are in car accidents are much more likely to survive an accident than if they were not buckled in and helmets are made to keep your skulls from cracking and scattering your brains all over the pavement.

not4u wrote:Believe me, I've heard the "public health expense" argument countless times and it just doesn't wash. We are talking about an individual here ... who makes a personal choice ... regarding their personal safety.

We are really talking about babies and children who have no choice but to put their trust in the adults who are taking care of them. It also forces kids to grow up with good habits. Think safety first, etc. To learn how to take care of themselves.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Brooke » Mon May 10, 2010 12:34 pm

Brooke wrote:Do you mean that if it is legalized they won't be able to obtain it easier than they do with it illegal? :eh?:
Fordama wrote:I guess their parents could buy it for them. However, it is plenty easy right now.

Fordama

Come on Ford, you know very well that if it is legalized then it gets a stamp of approval that opens the door for all kinds of excuses to use it as often as the person wants to justify it. Which puts the rest of us in danger, as I have said about a million times. Image
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
AsIfYouKnew
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby AsIfYouKnew » Mon May 10, 2010 12:41 pm

not4u13 wrote:Believe me, I've heard the "public health expense" argument countless times and it just doesn't wash. We are talking about an individual here ... who makes a personal choice ... regarding their personal safety.


I don't buy your argument here. If I want to ride without a helmet, and get injured, why should you have to pay to save me from a reasonably preventable loss of life? That makes no sense to me at all. I am all for personal freedom, but your financial freedom stops at my wallet.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

http://www.civilityinamerica.org/en/index.html

User avatar
Troglodyte
Posts: 16607
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Troglodyte » Mon May 10, 2010 12:54 pm

AsIfYouKnew wrote:
I don't buy your argument here. If I want to ride without a helmet, and get injured, why should you have to pay to save me from a reasonably preventable loss of life? That makes no sense to me at all. I am all for personal freedom, but your financial freedom stops at my wallet.

I gave up riding partly because of the helmet law.. I tried one and felt it reduced my vision and hearing beyond the safe level..
Also, I had both accident insurance on my bike, as well as full medical insurance, as most other responsible riders had. who were we gonna cost?
I don't suffer from any mental illnesses.. I enjoy them..

User avatar
AsIfYouKnew
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby AsIfYouKnew » Mon May 10, 2010 1:00 pm

Troglodyte wrote:I gave up riding partly because of the helmet law.. I tried one and felt it reduced my vision and hearing beyond the safe level..
Also, I had both accident insurance on my bike, as well as full medical insurance, as most other responsible riders had. who were we gonna cost?


The fact of the matter is that there were a lot of people that did not have adequate coverage, and ended up costing us a lot of money. The other option is that if you want to ride without a helmet you sign a waiver that you do not expect medical help after an accident. However, I don't think many people would go for that.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

http://www.civilityinamerica.org/en/index.html

not4u13
Posts: 5473
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby not4u13 » Mon May 10, 2010 3:56 pm

AsIfYouKnew wrote:
I don't buy your argument here. If I want to ride without a helmet, and get injured, why should you have to pay to save me from a reasonably preventable loss of life? That makes no sense to me at all. I am all for personal freedom, but your financial freedom stops at my wallet.


I understand your last statement "your financial freedom stops at my wallet". As I rider myself, I tell you that I would never ride without a helmet, even around the block. The reason that you feel you are paying is because we have a form of public healthcare. We also pay for smokers, obesity and all sorts of other ailments that are self-inflicted. Do you want to regulate those to? It is really a pretty silly argument to tell you the truth.

If Joe Rider wants to ride a motorcycle and not wear a helmet and also not carry any sort of personal insurance to cover his medical bills, it could end up costing us taxpayers money. No question about that. But don't forget that Joe Rider is also a taxpayer, as are a whole host of other riders. It isn't just your wallet, it is a whole lot of wallets and a whole lot of programs. What it really comes down to is a lack of understanding of the real costs. Both sides of the argument have all sorts of facts and statistics to back up their position.

Texas, for example, does not require an adult to wear a helmet on a motorcycle but anyone under 18 (or is it 21) must. However, to ride without a helmet in Texas you have to have proof that you have an acceptable amount of medical insurance and have taken a rider safety course. This, presumably, would be enough to satisify those who were concerned with the medical costs. It hasn't. There continue to be arguments for instituting various changes that would require all motorocyclists to wear helmets.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

not4u13
Posts: 5473
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby not4u13 » Mon May 10, 2010 4:04 pm

Brooke wrote: There are plenty of valid arguments to keep marijuana illegal as I just posted from the NIH.

and I replied to that posting at the time that those arguments were not valid and I explained why ... back then ...

Brooke wrote: I believe those laws were made to attract the attention of parents or adults in charge of minors with regard to their safety. There are plenty of adults who disregard safety precautions for themselves who are forced or at least have to give a thought to the safety of minors in their care. In my view, it really doesn't matter if Adult Joe Podunk wants to drive without a seat belt or ride his motorcycle without a helmet, if he wants to take a chance on injuring or killing himself then it is his choice, but it is entirely different when he is taking care of a baby or child.

That is really who the laws are for. It also forces adults to explain to their children why they must be buckled in when riding in a vehicle. Such as people who are in car accidents are much more likely to survive an accident than if they were not buckled in and helmets are made to keep your skulls from cracking and scattering your brains all over the pavement.

I don't agree. There are plenty of child safety laws and I agree with most of them (there are a few that we can discuss at a later date that I think go too far). Child safety seat laws, bicycle helmet laws for minors, seat belt laws for those under the age of 18, all make sense to me. What I disagree with is telling an adult how they need to behave in order to protect themselves from ... themselves. You don't do that in a free country.
Brooke wrote: We are really talking about babies and children who have no choice but to put their trust in the adults who are taking care of them. It also forces kids to grow up with good habits. Think safety first, etc. To learn how to take care of themselves.

If that is what we were really talking about then I would be fine with it, but I don't know of any babies that operate a motorcycle. There is no need for a consenting adult to be required to wear a seat belt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle. Should they do it? Yes. Will they do it without the passage of a law and the threat of a fine. Probably not. Not to the extent they would without a law. Even that does not make it right.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Brooke » Mon May 10, 2010 5:56 pm

Brooke wrote: I believe those laws were made to attract the attention of parents or adults in charge of minors with regard to their safety. There are plenty of adults who disregard safety precautions for themselves who are forced or at least have to give a thought to the safety of minors in their care. In my view, it really doesn't matter if Adult Joe Podunk wants to drive without a seat belt or ride his motorcycle without a helmet, if he wants to take a chance on injuring or killing himself then it is his choice, but it is entirely different when he is taking care of a baby or child.

That is really who the laws are for. It also forces adults to explain to their children why they must be buckled in when riding in a vehicle. Such as people who are in car accidents are much more likely to survive an accident than if they were not buckled in and helmets are made to keep your skulls from cracking and scattering your brains all over the pavement.

nott4u wrote:I don't agree. There are plenty of child safety laws and I agree with most of them (there are a few that we can discuss at a later date that I think go too far). Child safety seat laws, bicycle helmet laws for minors, seat belt laws for those under the age of 18, all make sense to me. What I disagree with is telling an adult how they need to behave in order to protect themselves from ... themselves. You don't do that in a free country.

You are an odd person. I imagine what happened was that people in the medical profession saw a lot of horrific injuries and deaths that could have been prevented by simply wearing seat belts and helmets. Being responsible people they decided to publicize it and then someone got the bright idea of making laws to try and influence people to comply for their own good and that of their children. Adults do not have to comply with these laws if they do not want to. They are free to pay the fines if caught. What is the big freaking deal? No one is forcing anyone to do anything. There are plenty of dumb folks around and if they need laws to tell them to protect their children then so be it. They are free to do what they want.
Last edited by Brooke on Mon May 10, 2010 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18023
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby Fordama » Mon May 10, 2010 6:00 pm

not4u13 wrote:If that is what we were really talking about then I would be fine with it, but I don't know of any babies that operate a motorcycle.
Image

Image
Image
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
AsIfYouKnew
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby AsIfYouKnew » Tue May 11, 2010 10:12 am

not4u13 wrote:
I understand your last statement "your financial freedom stops at my wallet". As I rider myself, I tell you that I would never ride without a helmet, even around the block. The reason that you feel you are paying is because we have a form of public healthcare. We also pay for smokers, obesity and all sorts of other ailments that are self-inflicted. Do you want to regulate those to? It is really a pretty silly argument to tell you the truth.

If Joe Rider wants to ride a motorcycle and not wear a helmet and also not carry any sort of personal insurance to cover his medical bills, it could end up costing us taxpayers money. No question about that. But don't forget that Joe Rider is also a taxpayer, as are a whole host of other riders. It isn't just your wallet, it is a whole lot of wallets and a whole lot of programs. What it really comes down to is a lack of understanding of the real costs. Both sides of the argument have all sorts of facts and statistics to back up their position.

Texas, for example, does not require an adult to wear a helmet on a motorcycle but anyone under 18 (or is it 21) must. However, to ride without a helmet in Texas you have to have proof that you have an acceptable amount of medical insurance and have taken a rider safety course. This, presumably, would be enough to satisify those who were concerned with the medical costs. It hasn't. There continue to be arguments for instituting various changes that would require all motorocyclists to wear helmets.


You are right. There is data on both sides, but that does not mean that each side is equally correct. I like the Texas approach in that you can be as frivolous with your life as you want as long as you can prove you are financially able to cover it yourself.

As for the obesity/smokes argument, one could easily argue that overweight and smokes save us money by ending their life early. Those of us that intend to live well into our eighties will be costing a lot more to take care of.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

http://www.civilityinamerica.org/en/index.html

not4u13
Posts: 5473
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock U.S. Consulate

Postby not4u13 » Tue May 11, 2010 11:14 am

Brooke wrote: You are an odd person. I imagine what happened was that people in the medical profession saw a lot of horrific injuries and deaths that could have been prevented by simply wearing seat belts and helmets. Being responsible people they decided to publicize it and then someone got the bright idea of making laws to try and influence people to comply for their own good and that of their children. Adults do not have to comply with these laws if they do not want to. They are free to pay the fines if caught. What is the big freaking deal? No one is forcing anyone to do anything. There are plenty of dumb folks around and if they need laws to tell them to protect their children then so be it. They are free to do what they want.


Why would you start out a response with the statement "you are an odd person"? What purpose does that serve when trying to have a discussion? Why do you insist on making this personal instead of just sticking to the posts?

Your assertion that people can go around this country intentionally disobeying laws as an example of them exercising their freedoms is a bit awkward don't you think? How is it freedom when you are forced to pay a fine or be subject to jail time?

Of course there are people who demonstrate a lack of common sense and intelligence on any given day in this country. Do you really think it is the business of government to protect those people from themselves?

The big freaking deal is that the people of this country should be free to choose how they want to live their lives, as long as they are not infringing upon others in the process of doing so. Smoking ordinances are in place because a smoker cannot control where the smoke from their cigarette goes. So, when they smoke, they are infringing on others around them who wish to breathe air absent the cigarette smoke.

A seatbelt law and a helmet law that specifically targets adults operating vehicles on public highways is telling people that they must comply with that law or risk fines and even imprisonment does not qualify as restricting the rights of one in order that they may not infringe on another.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com

Return to “Crime and Punishment”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest