California voters: Do you support prop 57 and 58?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


I'll say this. I understand the positions that people have on marijuana legalisation. But legalising cocaine or heroin? People who want that are half wit idiots who do not have an argument for such a stupid argument.

And just ask yourself this: Who can buy drugs at such high prices? Fewer can. And your numbers are bogus. Also... legalising it will bring in an influx of supply, thus cancelling out any loss in sales for the illegal drug trade.

England have for along time than program that gave they regur heron addit heron legality and Marget Trachet (the DinBat) want to end it because Ronald Regan(than other DinBat) want England to end it. The most converst inst in England fought her evil plan, the inst was Stockland Yard(London police and England FBI).
Marget Trachet I believe lost the fight.

[Barinthus]

All I have to say on this matter is look at Amsterdam. They seem to be doing just fine.

[CharlesBHoff]

Cocaine is use as than pain killer and local athesian(spray around than foot to remove than ingrown toenail). Heron is than very powerful painkiller given as than painkiller in England and some European countries with terminate illness like Cancer and who are in alot of pain. Heron can kill you in 6 month but does it matter to than terminate parient what kill then dead is dead. At least under heron they die happy and pain free.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And just ask yourself this: Who can buy drugs at such high prices? Fewer can. And your numbers are bogus. Also... legalising it will bring in an influx of supply, thus cancelling out any loss in sales for the illegal drug trade.

ok this makes no sense. how are the numbers bogus. prove it. now, legalizing it will mean an increase in supply, and since its legal, there wont be any more illegal drug trade. the gangs who run them now and fight over territory wont have anything to sell since you will be able to buy it at your local cafe/store/smoke shop. why go out oon the streets where its dangerous, when you can pick an an eighth at your supermarket in the vegetable isle?
and since there will be more supply and since the risks of running it wont have to be factored into the costs, the price of all drugs will come down

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


ok this makes no sense. how are the numbers bogus. prove it. now, legalizing it will mean an increase in supply,

And lower prices thus enabling more people to get a hold of it which is unacceptable.

the gangs who run them now and fight over territory wont have anything to sell since you will be able to buy it at your local cafe/store/smoke shop.

Unacceptable.

when you can pick an an eighth at your supermarket in the vegetable isle?

You sound like a moron.. this **** shouldn't sell anywhere and it should be exterminated.

the price of all drugs will come down

Yup meaning more people can buy them, which is also unacceptable.

[Kontiki]

That is, whithout a doubt, the best support for an arguement I've ever seen.

Imagine all the time people waste in university and business writing detailed reports supporting various positions when all they have to do is write "unacceptable" on a piece of paper and hand it in.....

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And lower prices thus enabling more people to get a hold of it which is unacceptable.

which will also decrease crime since people wont have to steal to get it.

You sound like a moron.. this **** shouldn't sell anywhere and it should be exterminated.

and how will we do that? we spend $2 billion a year and the price on the street is going down. you know what that means dont you.

fez, you've got no pragmatism. just cuz its illegal, doesnt mean nobody will do it.

kontiki -

[Deity Dude]

I'm not from Cali but I would still like to comment on the thread if that's OK? Well I'm not gonna wait for permission so I hope its OK - LOL.

Anyways I skipped directly to page 8 and see that somehow this has turned into a discussion of legalizing drugs, BUT I AM GONNA STICK TO THE THREAD TOPIC, (then I'll talk about drugs LOL)

PROP 57 - REFINANCE STATE DEBT AT A LOWER RATE.

Sounds like what I did when I remortgaged my home. I took a 13% interest rate and dropped it 6.75%. To me this is the type of common sense solution we need to see more of in government.

PROP 58 - GOVERNMENT MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET

Dose this mean government can't spend more money then they have and can't take more of the people's money than thier bloated budgets require? To me this is the type of common sense solution we need to see more of in government.

LEGALIZATION OF SUBSTANCES DEEMED ILLEGAL BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SELF CONSUMPTION.

War on Drugs ends saving tons of money, restores some of our lost privacy rights, takes people out of prison who's "crime" was ingesting a substance the government declares illegal, reduces violent crime, restores a person's right to make his own choices abouot his own life whether or not other people agree, plus a million other things. To me this is the type of common sense solution we need to see more of in government.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

'unacceptable' is the professors comment on Fez's paper.

[rev]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


And lower prices thus enabling more people to get a hold of it which is unacceptable.

It's a tradeoff: is the cost of crime as a result of drugs remaining illegal more or less than the cost of individuals harming themselves?

I say this as someone who less than a week ago lost his laptop to a tweeker (speed) kid who stole it to buy glass. (F'n Los Angeles. This kinda stuff NEVER happened back in hippie-pothead Boulder.)

[badams52]

I came into this thread hoping to see some insighful comments on props 57 and 58, but I just couldn't find the time to wade through all the tolling to find those nuggets of inspiration.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


which will also decrease crime since people wont have to steal to get it.



and how will we do that? we spend $2 billion a year and the price on the street is going down. you know what that means dont you.

fez, you've got no pragmatism. just cuz its illegal, doesnt mean nobody will do it.

kontiki -

Doesn't matter. More people will be suffering from drug abuse because it is cheaper to get. And they will have more money to feed their stupid addictions.

I say we go all the way. Adopt the Singaporean guidelines to drugs:

http://www.sfdonline.org/sfd/Link%20...ghts/hang.html

SINGAPORE, March 19 (Reuters) - Singapore hanged three men on Friday for drug trafficking, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) said in a statement.

Friday's executions brought the number of people hanged this year in Singapore to 11.

Chou Kooi Pang was executed for delivering 290.4 grams (9.7 ounces) of diamorphine in Singapore to accomplice Tan Chye Guan. Tan was hanged for possessing the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

Fok Chia Siong was executed for importing more than 1,300 grams (43 ounces) of cannabis from Malaysia in a separate incident. Fok was caught trying to drive across the Causeway linking Singapore and Malaysia with the drugs in 1997.

Chou and Fok were Malaysians and Tan was a Singaporean, a CNB official said.

Singapore's tough anti-drug laws include a mandatory death sentence for anyone over 18 guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams (half an ounce) of heroin, 30 grams (an ounce) of morphine or 500 grams (18 ounces) of cannabis.

And it works too!

I think we should declare state of emergency, send the national guard out and the problem will be solved almost nearly. Some troops with M-16s and SAWs will solve things.

[rev]

We could round up some gays, too, and throw 'em in the pen for having homosexual sex.

If you think executing people for having marijuana is an appropriate practice in the free world, well, you're sick.

[Giancarlo]

That post was mostly for shock value. And for me to laugh at the responses I get from it.

But other than that, I have no problem with hanging people for having marijuana. Homosexual sex is not similar to marijuana.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have no problem with hanging people for having marijuana.

Unacceptable!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
But other than that, I have no problem with hanging people for having marijuana. Homosexual sex is not similar to marijuana.

Not that I think it's feasible, but do you think you could actually articulate your reasons for this?

If, as I suspect, it's because you feel you're the final authority on what's morally acceptable, then you needn't bother.

[rev]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
That post was mostly for shock value. And for me to laugh at the responses I get from it.

The difference between the post in question and the post I quote now is that you took some facts and figures out of the latter. The shock value's still right here:

But other than that, I have no problem with hanging people for having marijuana.

Sick.

Homosexual sex is not similar to marijuana.

Indeed, it is not. This has already been established. What IS similar, however, is how homosexual sex and marijuana are treated under the law: both are taboo and will get you thrown in the slammer if you're caught with it, depending on the circumstances and the state you're in.

Both are examples of government legislating against harmless, victimless crimes, replacing personal responsibility with a prison cell.

[Ned]

I don't know that it was mentioned earlier on this thread but there is another proposition on the ballot, proposition 56, which undoes a critical proposition 13 reform. It lowers the vote percentage from two-thirds to 55% for the Legislature to enact tax increases. I became aware of this proposition when I heard a commercial by the Howard Jarvis committee coming out against it. For those for you who were not here then, Howard Jarvis was the man behind proposition 13.

I of course will vote against proposition 56. I suspect many my Democrat fellows here in California will vote in favor, for after all, Democrats are in favor of tax increases and against a good business climate, against jobs, against prosperity, and against Liberty.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

dont even talk about being for liberty ned, cuz youre not.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

SINGAPORE, March 19 (Reuters) - Singapore hanged three men on Friday for homosexual acts, the Central Morality Bureau (CMB) said in a statement.

Friday's executions brought the number of people hanged this year in Singapore to 11.

Chou Kooi Fez was executed for delivering 290.4 grams (9.7 ounces) of homosexuality in Singapore to accomplice Tan Chye Guan. Tan was hanged for possessing homosexuality for the purpose of immoral acts.

Fok Chia Siong was executed for importing more than 1,300 grams (43 ounces) of bisexuality from Malaysia in a separate incident. Fok was caught trying to drive across the Causeway linking Singapore and Malaysia with the disease in 1997.

Fez and Fok were Spaniards and Tan was a Singaporean, a CMB official said.

Singapore's tough anti-gay laws include a mandatory death sentence for anyone over 18 guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams (half an ounce) of homosexuality, 30 grams (an ounce) of bisexuality or 500 grams (18 ounces) of beastiality.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
dont even talk about being for liberty ned, cuz youre not.

Lawrance, all I know is that the Democrats are not in favor of Liberty.

As to me personally, Liberty is the most important of rights. I am almost a Libertarian, but not quite.

[Giancarlo]

Lawrance, nice try. Now it doesn't make any sense. Drugs does not equal homosexuality. Drug addicts deserve the death penalty, whereas homosexuals do not as they do nothing wrong.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Lawrance, nice try. Now it doesn't make any sense. Drugs does not equal homosexuality. Drug addicts deserve the death penalty, whereas homosexuals do not as they do nothing wrong.

What exactly has someone smoking pot in their own home done wrong? Who are they hurting?

Try reading rev's post. He laid it out pretty clearly.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Lawrance, nice try. Now it doesn't make any sense. Drugs does not equal homosexuality. Drug addicts deserve the death penalty, whereas homosexuals do not as they do nothing wrong.

Hang on... why do regular people who get chemically addicted to a substance deserve the death penalty?

Some substances are chemically coersive in ways that no one can personally break.

Should we punish those who get hooked to prescription drugs, like... say Vikes?

That is... should Rush Limbaugh be put to dea... ahh.. bad example but you get the point.

[rev]

Giancarlo, nobody here is suggesting that being gay and doing drugs are the same. You're absolutely right: they're NOT the same. Being gay isn't a choice; doing drugs is.

What IS the same -- and this is the last time I'm saying this, so please take your fingers out of your ears -- is the way government TREATS them. The way social conservatives (on the authoritarian side of the fence, which I'm sure you're acutely familiar with) see it, anything you do on your own private property, behind closed doors, with consenting adults, ANYTHING YOU DO is their (government's) business to monitor and to punish.

As for choice, as a said: being gay isn't a choice; doing drugs is. However, the government won't punish you for BEING gay, but for engaging in homosexual relations. If government is allowed to limit your choices behind closed doors, then smoking a bowl and having same-sex relations are one and the same and can be fully regulated and punished, merely because some majority (not even a great majority) thinks it's a bad or immoral choice.

Morality is to what extent you'll use your freedoms. Want to share your bed with a member of the same sex? GREAT! You're both consenting adults and whatever happens as a result is your own personal responsibility -- that's freedom.

You'd put people to death for causing others no harm.

And to echo MrBaggins: should we put caffiene addicts before a firing line? Caffiene, after all, is severely addictive and, by the loosest of definitions, a drug. It can furthermore change peoples' personalities -- and this is something people don't talk about, whereas with illegal drugs many are already aware of the physical consequences of consuming them.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by rev
Giancarlo, nobody here is suggesting that being gay and doing drugs are the same. You're absolutely right: they're NOT the same.

What IS the same -- and this is the last time I'm saying this, so please take your fingers out of your ears -- is the way government TREATS them. The way social conservatives (on the authoritarian side of the fence, which I'm sure you're acutely familiar with) see it, anything you do on your own private property, behind closed doors, with consenting adults, ANYTHING YOU DO is their (government's) business to monitor and to punish.

Morality is, in some fashion (but not by definition), to what extent you'll use your freedoms. Want to share your bed with a member of the same sex? GREAT! You're both consenting adults and whatever happens as a result is your own personal responsibility -- that's freedom.

You'd put people to death for causing others no harm.

And, to echo MrBaggins: should we put before the firing line those who are addicted to caffiene? It is, by the most vague of definitions, a drug and it is highly, highly addictive, and it changes peoples personalities.

As than Muslim Islan treach you cannot ban alchol or other drugs which are either apart of culture or people will do against the law anyway in large number. The United Stated try to ban alchol in the 1920's than it fail.
Saudi Arabia ban alchol as alchol drinking wasnot apart of their culture. Alchol is use to be able to medine as more medical are solute in alchol instead of water, than that is the only way that the medine can be taken then muslim can take the medine dissolve in alchol.

[rev]

My recent-girlfriend (who's still a friend, we're just seperated by a thousand miles) spent most of her life in Saudi Arabia. Bootlegging (illegal alcohol) is common and strongly linked with drug sales (so alcohol there is the 'gateway drug'). Those who are rich enough just drive out to a nearby country to drink and party, much like teens in southern California (and, indeed, much of the US) do with Tijuana, Mexico.

[Oerdin]

I spent lots of time in TJ and I don't do any hard drugs. Neither do my friends who also used to go to TJ regularly.

[rev]

Of course not. People go to TJ to drink and party -- the drinking age is lower than the US' and things are generally cheaper. Because it's legal, there's a disconnect between alcohol and drugs, which is the same thing that would happen with marijuana if it were legalized: you'd buy pot in a store, not from a dealer who is likely to have other products he wants to sell you.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Lawrance, all I know is that the Democrats are not in favor of Liberty.

As to me personally, Liberty is the most important of rights. I am almost a Libertarian, but not quite.

well good, cuz im not a democrat either. and i dont think you are anywhere close to being libertarian.