timesjoke

Yes, but in a different way. Some kids smoke pot as a kind of rebellion, and sure many adults will still look unfavorably at it, but it will no longer meet the levelt hey want so they will need to move on to a new drug to express their rebellious nature. This is an interesting point, could making pot legal force some kids to harsher drugs? I can see where this is possible, I wonder what Jhony will say about your point?

As ex law enforcement I can tell you that many times, they write laws with enough slack to allow for unforseen events. Let's consider a pedaphile report where they search a guy and he has lots of what he calls legal movies but he cannot prove the actors in the movies are adults. The state cannot prove they are children either, so now your sitting there holding very horrible material but you cannot do anything about it. But, even with this example, the investigation must start somehwere. They don't know to look at him without a reason comming up to get their attention.

But this will be the result no matter if your asking for it or not. You don't want the booze ads but their happening anyway being a great proof of my point. The second you make it legal, you make it acceptable, one goes hand in hand with the other. But your missing the entire point. Your not being thrown into jail because of a plant, your being thrown in jail for breaking a law you clearly know about. The pot does not force you to break the law. Even if you say your compelled by an addiction to chase pot, then it is your addiction, not the pot itself that caused the problem. If you "choose" to break the law, you decide the risk is worth it. Now your talking about perspective. You see getting stoned as the same as speeding, I don't. Thankfully, our lawmakers agree with me in this case so I can be happy about that. You want your illegal drug so your attacking the system that restricts your access to it. This is nothing new, all illegal drug users all say the exact same thing. All criminals say it to be honest, we all see our own crimes as less damaging than what the other guy is doing because we are looking at it with our "me" glasses on. I definately do not see the arguement af "less" harm, in fact, the very assumption of it being "safe" is what will make it spread like wildfire the second it is made legal.

And this is a great example of my point. Some of us find good reasons for how we need government to intrude in the most basic needs of it's people in one way, that meant it will feel obligated to do it in other ways as well. Why does the government need to teach our kids any of this? Where are the parents? What ever happened to common sense? Do you really need the government to tell you bacon and fried chichen are bad for you? If we are relying on the government to raise our kids, what is the point? I say schools need to go back to the "real" basics, like math, science, and history. Make the parents get back to being parents.

Do you have any idea how difficult that would be? Let's say you and your mate taped him spanking you and you only want the video for your own viewing pleasure, how would the government ever find out? If they were that good there would never be unsolved crimes. Obviously your video would need to be made public in some way, and it is allowing this kind of thing out into the public that is what their concerned with. Even if this law goes into effect, just always keep your sexual life private and you will never be bothered by it.

Fake kiddie porn is legal, and was what I was speaking about. If you notice, there is the "appears" word in a lot of the examples. I would say the acts stop being for private use the second it is taped, if not then, I would say if someone other then the actors viewed it. I agree, but the second they share their acts it then becomes public, not private. But again they could still be acting from pressure, not sexual desire for that level of abuse from the partner being my point. Who can say for sure? Should we just assume every sexual act commited on a female is always wanted? Most of the sex industry is driven by drug addiction of one type or another in most places. They can make lots of money in a short time to feed theior habit, so anything that would get in the way of that income, would get in the way of their addiction. Even without the drug problems, who cares what the workers want? My main job is to bid large construction jobs, shopping malls and stuff, do you have any idea how much money it costs to meet all the regulations for these kinds of projects? If I could get around laws I don't like that effect my job I could make massive money, so I understand why they don't want the laws, but that does not mean the laws are wrong just because they will reduce profits for these workers. And if it is only a case of making money, then it is no longer about the freedom of sexual desires but just another case of people being taken advantage of. I have to come back to the fact that nobody is talking aobut restricting what you do in your bedroom, they are talking about movies, if two people are having violent sex, and another person is running a camera, it is no longer a private sex act, it is now public, and subject to different treatment in my opinion. Now, if you have an unmanned camera taping you and you never show the tape to anyone else, I would see that as harmless, but we still must consider if both parties were completely consenting or just going along from fear or something.

Okay, but this is the part they fall back on: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States Event he rest of it lays grounds for more. You cannot expect to put limits on the monster once you create it because it will grow beyond your control on it's own. The minute you make up excuses for federal control over certain things, the natural progression must force it to consider other things previously thought to not need it's "help". While I agree with you and I would say my own desires for America is much harsher then yours I would bet, we have to accept the fact that we have made exceptions to federal control, and it is the exceptions that lead to more exceptions.

Where your math is faulty is your trying to force an impossible number into it and looking at it from the wrong direction. The children of smokers are more likely to smoke than the children of non-smoking parents. Ther number is huge because part of the smoking addiction is learned from environment. Most of the time it is learned from parents or other family member in the home, the next most common place is friends, if the person's friends smoke, then there is a chance they will pick it up from them. Again, your getting hung up on one point that is confusing you and I see your point, but your missing the point that children learn from their environment and if we present to them things like drinking and smoking being acceptable behavoirs, there is a high possibility our children will do these things as well. This goes to one of my main reasons for not wanting any more legal recreational drugs. By making them acceptable in society, we doom our children to use them, even abuse them just like we do with things like drinking.

The problem is how do we look at a video and know 100% that the person being horribly beaten "truly" wanted to be beat so harshly? Could they be doing it for money? Could they be pressured with threats against them or their loved ones? How about just in fear of their own lives like how a battered wife will stay in an abusive relationship for 20 years because she feels she has no other choice? Again, keep it private in your own bedroom and nobody knows anything anyway, but if your taping your actions and other people see it to turn you in somehow, then your private actions are no longer private, they have become public, that change of status is what is changing the situation. I saw part of a "fake" kiddie porn movie while I was in law enforcement that looked so real I could not fully watch it. Their story line was a rape scene of a young girl. She was forced on her face, her clothes ripped off, and the male raped her from behind with the "little girl" screaming and begging the man to stop. Who could even consider making something like that? Who would get off watching somethign like that? Maybe I am wrong, but I believe this kind of thing should be illegal.

So to further define your possition and be sure I understand, you say government should only act to stop direct crime with police, and agression from other Countries with an army? That leave out a mess of stuff. How about disease like small pox? Should the government take action to prevent disease? How about other harful factors to society like poverty/hunger? Should the government take action to provide at least basic life for it's people? Where I am going is if you can identify any factors you believe are good for government to manage, that is how it starts. First one "need" then another until it starts snowballing out of control. I am not saying I dissagree with you, if you believe the federal government should never directly act on anything you would be very close to the original design of our Country by the founding fathers, but where most find pause is the fact that most of the modern things we enjoy like a National road system is only possible by a federal government. Balanced penalties for certain violations of the law is only possible with a federal government. Prison overcrowding was stopped by the federal government. Even food safety programs are run by the feds. The federal government has slowly taken over where we have let them, and now it is a force of it's own. Hell, even things like sex education is handled by the government because parents can't be bothered.

I have always wondered about the "pretend" films like snuff films or kiddie porn. The makers and buyers of films like this are skirting the laws by claiming it is all fake but what their doing is feeding the desires of some very sick people. Call me old, call me square, but all I can see is harm comming from these kinds of films. If nothing else, I believe they can stir up the desires of people to act on impulses they may not have acted on otherwise. For me there is a fine line with the rough sex. Sure, I can see where roll play and even some pain can be fun during sex, I have known a few wild ladies in my time (red heads mostly) but as with everything in life, there should be a limit. For the sake of arguement, I do not see how smacking someone in the head with a hammer could be considered sex, but I guess there are all sorts of strange people out there. I have no real pity for those who do things like kiddie porn (fake or real) and then they try to wrap themselves in the flag and ask for protections, who is protecting the little kids who could get molested? Sure, people are responsible for their actions but that does not mean we should be feeding their sickness either. I just have one question, what ever happened to things being kept behind closed doors?

So you agree that those who severely overeat are harmful to society but the government should not try to do anything about that harm right? If protecting members of our society from harm is not the job of government, what is? Don't get me wrong, I believe we should only have state governments with any real power, a federal government only to coordinate large actions like wars and to offer a bridge between states for things like crimes covering more then one state being as one state cannot control another. I agree that a federal government is bad, but that geenie is now out of the bottle and she is not going back in. My point is once we allowed an all powerful government to exist, this is the kind of natural progression government will take. I keep thinking about Demolition Man where the government made things like swearing and unhealthy food illegal. I am sure it will not happen overnight but elected officials must always be passing new laws to justify their existance.

So my next question for you is if the people who over eat cause harm to society, should government try to stop that harm to it's society? They have machines that use two probes and can tell your fat percentage in seconds. Determining if someone is too fat is easy, deciding what to do about it is the difficult part. I believe we can all agree that being severely overweight is a bad thing. I also believe we can agree that "something" should be done to help these people, but our problem is trying to agree on what (if anything) should be done. There is one thing we can say for sure, doing nothing won't help.

I believe it boils down to pressuring the quarterback. Ther giants were able to get lots of pressure on Brady, but Manning rarely felt any real bad pressure. With the current level of football, you just can't let a quarterback have that kind of time. My hat is off to the Giants, they played excellent defense and the younger Manning held remarkable composure throughout the entire game. This is why I love football, it is not as simple as looking at the statistics, the human factor will always make a huge difference in things like this.

Does society suffer any negative effects from those who over eat? I will admit to being a tad disturbed by the "super" overweight from time to time. I have always said there should be a weight limit to things like spandex and similar items as well. I wonder if this was started by the all you can eat restaurant lobby?

I have no idea what your talking about, most of the time your fairly easy to understand so maybe this is my fault but either way, I don't know how to reply. Children of smoking parents are 70 times more likely to smoke then non-smoking parents (this means children who are raised in non-smoking homes are less likely to smoke themselves). Children of drunks have a similar tendancy to be drunks, a dad beating mom will also tend to pass this activity on to his son, a woman is more likely to have children out of wedlock if her mother did the same. Do you see a pattern forming? Playing dressup is not the only way children mimic adults. My point is children learn from what they see in their home and society. What is considered acceptable to adults they see will tend to be acceptable to them. Again, were talking in general, I understand there are exceptions. Jhony, I see your point but this is the problem with making something legal. By saying it is okay to drink, you now put it in the same catagory with radios and burgers, just another comodity business want to sell. Drinking is popular because it is a legal recreational drug accepted in all areas of society, sipping wine at a thousand dollars a bottle or pouring five dollar wine on the ground for your "homies". This is what will happen with any legal recreational drug. Let's consider all the brancing business opportunities the second pot becomes legal. First of all, the home growing market will explode, with even Wal-Mart selling grow lights. Then there are the seeds, all the special kinds to select from, we can have special treatments and even special compost. Then there is smoking methods, sure head shops are around but once everything is legal, now evaryone needs a bong or designer pipe. Then will start the foods. Brownies will be the first obvious product but many other products will flood the market all fighting for superiority. Them I am sure television would not want to be sitting around wasting their chance to cash in on the new legal pot. I can imagine pot smoking shows, reviews and even contests for who can produce the largest crop or some other reality show garbage. No, don't think pot will escape the marketing blitz beer gets now. I'm just wondering if we can get the horses stoned for the superbowl commercials, that would be funny.

If they wanted and loved her so much, why was she living with her grandmother till the age of six? Why did she feel her only option to get away from the abuse was to run away? Why was going to live with her father a last option "after" the detention facility could not take her? Either way, my point was Oprah endured a massive amount of abuse and definately did not have a lifetime of a supportive and loving family structure. She overcame all that, and a society that had open and even encouraged double standards for blacks in America. If she can overcome all that and become the richest woman in television, there are no excuses and also no preset lives by circumstances. We should not be killing kids just because we "think" the child will not have a good future.

I agree completely but what most people fail to understand is the reason there is so much harm connected to drinking is the fact it is acceptable in society. As Jhony pointed out, the commercials play a part as well. You can walk on the beach or watch a baseball game with a beer in your hand and nobody will pay you any attention at all. Any drug with that level of acceptance in society will be heavily abused, and this is my point. You guys can "claim" to know successful people who smoke pot but then we see their models or jewelery makers, again, very low intelligence jobs. Sure, low smarts jobe can pay very well and I do understand that, but you guys are confusing monetary gain with my point of pot inhibiting mental strength and on top of that, I still say there are exceptions. We are talking about society in general, not a few exceptions. I agree many of you are smart and well spoken, many very successful people do drugs, but why put more barriers in front of our children then they already have? I will say this again, even Jhony and some others have admitted pot is bad for kids, the more acceptable a drug is to society, the more likely children will want to do it. They see grownups drink, they want to drink. Children of smokers are 70 times more likely to smoke themselves. Children will likely emulate their environment. It is hard to soar with eagles when your hanging out with a bunch of turkeys.

I don't know how much they wanted her. Oprah lived with her grandomther till she was six. After that she lived with her mother but suffered molestation in her mother's home and ran away at the age of thirteen. She was sent to a detention facility but it was too full to accept her and they then sent her to live with her father. No, her parents did not truly want her and they allowed her to be molested and abused. In the short tern, yes. It would take some time to settle in but if abortion was no longer an option, people would start being more careful. We should not be lowering standards just because some don't want to measure up. There are huge waiting lists in every town in America for infants to be adopted. If women don't want their children adoption is a great alternative to killing them. And the only way to do that is to "force" people to take responsibility for risky sex. Don't forget there are lots of STD's running around out there because of all the unprotected sex as well so this could help with those as well.

Like my mom used to say, you don't have to jump off a cliff just because everyone else is. I doubt that 80% of the population does drugs, hell, % of the worlds population cannot even get a steady meal or shoes on their feet. But, even if they did, who cares? I do not decide what is moral or right based on how many people there are doing or wanting something. So you were very bad before and now just a little bad and somehow that makes it alright? What if someone used to kill people but now only maims them, does that make it okay? The degree your breaking the law or being a stoner does not matter. Just like cocain and heroin, we are fighting drug incursion to our youth, and all numbers and studies are showing a slow, but consistant victory in that area. I don't care so much for the adults that throw away their lives, I am mostly concerned for kids and by making something as bad as pot acceptable, we will have given up our future. All recreational drugs have a very severe effect on society, some estimates show millions of pot smokers on welfare because their too lazy from the drugs to get a job for example. So would everyone else, pot is easier to grow than weeds and the minute pot was made legal, every home that wanted it would have it inside two months and this is why I feel there will be an explosion of drug dependant people to a degree most cannot even imagine. We can go in circles but what is the point? You know pot is harmful, you guys even admit it effects mental abilities so why would any parent want their kids smoking it? I am a parent, I do not have the luxery of just giving up and letting my kids be victims of recreational drugs without a fight. There is not one redeeming quality of recreational drugs for society. As you guys keep pointing out, anyone with some caution can get all the pot they want without ever getting in trouble, so making it legal would not change anything for you. We are only catching the stupid ones, and to be honest, I like taking the stupid ones off the streets, maybe they won't breed as much and this will indirectly improve the gene pool.

Most abortions are from women who already have kids, their not married, and either did not use protection at all, or did not use it "every" time they had sex in the month they got pregnant. Most abortions have nothing to do with abuse, rape, incest, or medical need, it is about a method of birth control, period. I will never suppoort killing children because someone "thinks" the kid will be bad or live the life of a criminal. Who can say the same child will grow up to cure cancer? I bring up the story of Oprah Winfrey a lot because here we have a black girl, who endured the "real" racism of old, not the softer, gentler forms used to file lawsuits for not getting a promotion. She survived getting raped numerious times, she survived many hardships, and she is the richest woman in television today. No, let's not "assume" any child is better off dead.

Being as I am talking about what can be proven, and you can only talk about what "might" be, we have come to a point where we are beating a dead horse. The "provable" facts show at the least, very high concern for the mental retardation caused by smoking pot, both short term and long term, in some cases the harm can last months. I pointed out you and all your friends are construction workers but you want to point out two or three news stories about arrests, who cares about arrests, to be honest I will openly admit here that the simple folks tend to be better at breaking the law and not getting busted then the "white collar" crowd. Most pot smokers don't get busted, most users are in jobs like construction where thinking power is not the most important aspect of their day. You can try to ague but your a walking/talking example of the facts. Pot as a recreational drug is not "needed" in society. I can see some medical uses, but we have enough problems with the one legal drug we have. Making pot or any other drug legal will not remove any crime, in fact it will greatly increase crime because the number of addicted people will increase by a factor of 20 at the least. Legal or not, an abuser of drugs cannot support a drug habbit unless they are independantly wealthy so they will need to find ways to pay for their severe addiction. We have covered all the bases I believe so unless someone can offer a new direction to consider, this discussion has run it's course. Jhony, I don't think your a bad person, I believe that for a drug addict, your as good as it gets, I agree that pot is possibly the most gently addiction anyone can get, but I satill see no value to society for recreational drugs, and only harm such as mental illness not getting proper treatment. I know you feel "your" drug is good and other drugs are bad, but I see all mind altering substances as bad for society. I'm sorry, but as a parent, I really have no other choice but to try and make a world with as few traps as possible. No, I don't think we are doing as good a job as we could, my idea of removing all money would stop all illegal drug trade but it will take time to make that happen. We could also close all borders with the military and inspect "everything" to partly stop the drug trade. There is more we can do, but the important thing is to never give up on our kids or our comunities. Peace brother.

The status quo also includes things like murder being illegal, society sets rules, sure we should stand up to try and get change where we believe it is needed and I respect your right to do so, my only point in this reguard is breaking the laws just because you don't like them is wrong. Like my mother always said, there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. But this is my point, if their only recreation choice is getting stoned, this says a lot about them. You mean like the study I posted proving a link to suppressed learning with those who smoke pot? I will admit there is science on both sides of the issue, but the point is we cannot say pot is "safe". Mental ability is suppressed by those who smoke pot, the effects have been shown in some studies to last everal months "after" the person stops smoking pot, I believe Mental retarding is a fair classification. When parents allow kids to get guns and the kid kills himself or the neighbor child, do we just say it is the parent's fault, or the child's fault or do we also have laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of children "before" they accidently kill someone? The point is prevention, children, even as old as 25 year olds (in my opinion) are not mature enough to make a decision this critical to their future. As responsible adults, it is our responsibility to try and protect our kids. That is not to say we are always going to do a good job, but doing and failing is better then just giving up on our kids. Right, is this what people have turned to? The right to be stupid? This is now the montra of society? Maybe I am old, maybe I am out of touch with modern thinking, but I'll be darned if I will ever accept this concept for America. We should not bo so proud of being stupid. Fact, please see next comment for clarification. And yet, every example you give is construction/maintenance workers. I love being right. Now, don't get me wrong, we need construction workers, we cannot survive without these trade workers, but my point is that the average pot smoker is working these low end jobs and this cannot be by chance. As I keep saying, there are always exceptions to every rule, but even you, the most responsible drug user I know, is a construction worker. By the way, if your good at painting, your not really a painter, any idiot knows the true talent is the prep, especially the caulking, so I call all good painters good caulkers, it makes for a good laugh.

Too bad it's under your hat....... I could not resist, lol.

Well, being as Hugo already slapped your dumb butt atound quite nicely, I will keep this simple, first you failed to prove the scienc wrong, second your our very bised source against this guy says he only gor a few thousand dollars from as far back as the 90's. If just a few hundred to a thousand dollars a year from oil companies is enough to claim he has sold his soul to them, then we can prove that Al Gore has taken a lot more from speical intrest groups so he has sold his soul as well. Should we post Al Gores campaign contributer list to see who he got money from? After a week of prepration and other people helping you this is the best you can come up with? Your only method of trying to disprove their science is to try and attack the character of the person? Being as this is the exact same tactic you have used here over and over, it does not surprise me. You come here empty handed, your only offer personal attacks as your debating style and most of those attacks are very lame indeed. Or this one: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. Pot, Kettle, Black. You have still offered nothing. Not one shred of proof, sure you worked very hard to tear away at a person, but so what? You have not proven anything about what we are talking bout, and you have not proven that the information I offered is wrong, or even biased to be honest. If getting a few hundred dollars a year from oil compainies is enough to completely discount science, then nobody can speak on this issue because every scientist worth their sand are all working on grants offered by either the private sector or the government. No, you cannot simply toss away facts by trying to attack the owner of a site and especially with such a tiny amount of money involved. Let's get back to the science and provable facts, something you dodge and duck at every turn with your personal attacks. The truth will set you free of your closed mind. Character assassination only gets you past the gullible and childish people who have no minds of their own. Those of us capable of thinking can see past your feble attempts and point out your flaws, if your going to make a claim, back it up. I can tear away at your false claims and your lack of real knowledge on these subjects all day but to be honest, your wasting my time. I don't mind a little of the childish games with Wez because he is at least funny sometimes, but you sir, you cam in here insulting anyone who dared to dissagree with you and so far, have not posted a single fact to back you up. You make wild claims of grandure about running a foundation and having lots of help to do research but at the end of the day, all you have is personal attacks, well any idiot can fall on that sword, and you have done so nicely. Your now officially branded an idiot, maybe you care, maybe you don't, but this is your fault, not mine. I gave you a chance to prove yourself, and you failed miserably, but I am willing to give you one more chance. I give you the chance to prove Gore's movie is not full of beans, this is the fourth time I have asked you this. Do not come back with personal attacks, come back with real proof this time. You must also be able to have some credibility, the 400 scientists in the proof against man made global warming I just pointed you to, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. The ball is in your court, you may also take notice that it only took me a few moments to completely destroy your post, it did not take me several days with a team of helpers, this is all open debating off the top of my head, yes I do live up to my name, I make a joke out of idiots like you every time, Timesjoke, lol.