Awesome News.

[Kanalua]

I'm for decriminalizing drug use, not legalizing drug use/possession. Here in Hawaii, they pretty much decriminalized all traffic violations. Now the traffic courts are very streamlined, more fines, less jail (almost no jail), which mean no public defenders, which leads to the State getting more fines from idiot drivers.

So I agree, decrim drugs (not legalize), instead of jail, fines and other administrative penalties (loss of drivers and professional licenses, state welfare benefits, workers comp, gun ownership license, alimony, etc). I think that would be a great idea!

 

[Gamingphreek]

I updated my post above because I accidentally hit the reply button. Luckily there are more posts to respond to down here so I'll continue here 🙂

So I agree, decrim drugs (not legalize), instead of jail, fines and other administrative penalties (loss of drivers and professional licenses, state welfare benefits, workers comp, gun ownership license, alimony, etc). I think that would be a great idea!

For Marijuana that may work given that the effects are much more mild than the other drugs. But speed/heroin/crack - you are kidding yourself if that should be decriminalized.

Gamingphreek, the real problem here is that you admit to being underinformed about the substances about which you are busting people

I know enough to know that it is harmful among other things. Not only that, it isn't my place to debate the rules that I have to enforce. In fact, at the first sense of drugs, I am not allowed to act at all other than call the police.

And if you don't understand nakedfrog's most recent post about ridiculous laws on the books in many states, you don't even understand your own position. You're busting these people because of laws yet you can't seem the complete insanity of some laws out there.

You are comparing the OBVIOUSLY goofy laws (ie: Walking an Elephant on a sidewalk) to DRUGS?!

2nd edit: Also it's obvious you're not a statistician of any kind. Either that or you bombastically call into question studies/numbers which conflict with your personal world view. Regardless you're taking a very specific position with very little evidence/experience.

I'm merely asking how in the world we can get statistics on drugs. If they are illegal how in the world can we accurately estimate how many people use them or don't use them?? I'm saying that I can't see how those numbers have any quantifiable proof behind them.

-Kevin

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are comparing the OBVIOUSLY goofy laws (ie: Walking an Elephant on a sidewalk) to DRUGS?!

-Kevin

Perhaps I misunderstand your position. I felt the described scenario portrayed mature, responsible usage, and you responded that it's an oxymoron to responsibly break the law. This led me to believe that you were saying the usage was irresponsible because it was against the law. Is this incorrect?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
You are comparing the OBVIOUSLY goofy laws (ie: Walking an Elephant on a sidewalk) to DRUGS?!

-Kevin

Perhaps I misunderstand your position. I felt the described scenario portrayed mature, responsible usage, and you responded that it's an oxymoron to responsibly break the law. This led me to believe that you were saying the usage was irresponsible because it was against the law. Is this incorrect?

I'm sorry - I addressed it in an earlier post. But because I accidentally hit the reply button - it went in as an edit. Thus you probably didn't see it since it was up a couple posts by the time I finished it. I'll quote it here for you:

Your position is that any act that breaks the law is an irresponsible act, as I understand. I provided laws that when broken are clearly not irresponsible acts (to any clear-thinking person). Did I misrepresent your position?

I'm finding it hard to articulate a quantifiable argument. Laws require human interpretation in the end. I could give a blanket example in this case, but there are instances when it doesn't apply.

Any time you break the law, obviously it has been broken. We both agree on this.

Obviously every time you break the law (For instance the rushing to the hospital) obviously does not make it irresponsible.

Peacefully protesting a law that is a crime against humanity (ie: Slavery, Racial/Sexual Discrimination) is not irresponsible.

Marijuana use does not fall under either of those categories.

You didn't misrepresent my position because I failed to articulate my point very clearly. Hopefully my stance is clearer now. I apologize for the confusion.

Sorry again - I should have just added another post, instead of continuing editing.

-Kevin

 

[Legendary]

I know enough to know that it is harmful among other things. Not only that, it isn't my place to debate the rules that I have to enforce. In fact, at the first sense of drugs, I am not allowed to act at all other than call the police.

Being an RA, there is no enforcement of your enforcement of the rules. You are not strictly required (in a consequences type way) to narc out marijuana smokers.

You are comparing the OBVIOUSLY goofy laws (ie: Walking an Elephant on a sidewalk) to DRUGS?!

Yes, I am. If you use the logic of 'I cannot question rules/laws' than a strict comparison of laws is a logical basis.

If you saw a student walking an elephant on the street (in whatever state that insane law is in effect) would you call it in to the police? Or would you think 'wait, this law is fairly insane? Why would I ruin everyone's day with such nonsense?'

I'm merely asking how in the world we can get statistics on drugs. If they are illegal how in the world can we accurately estimate how many people use them or don't use them?? I'm saying that I can't see how those numbers have any quantifiable proof behind them.

Anonymous surveys man. If someone has nothing to lose, presumably they have nothing to hide. Statistical comparisons are made off strictly controlled questions asked to people who are told beforehand that there is no risk to them. It benefits society to allow these things to happen.

Also, following along that point, if something became legal, don't you think more people would be willing to admit they are using drugs? Then why did the number go down in Portugal and in the 14 states mentioned in the post we're talking about?

Your logic does not follow in this case.


To put it simply, you are either
1. surrendering your ability to think about what it is you're enforcing, instead acting as an agent of laws you haven't thought about
or
2. hiding behind legalism in your quest to 'help' people rid themselves of things YOU think are bad. Essentially you're forcing your beliefs on them.

Do either of these things jive with your philosophy? Or are you doing something else? There is NO EVIDENCE of marijuana being physically or mentally harmful to the people who use it. Why do you support laws based on something that is essentially false? Because of what you've seen in remote cases? Were those people harming anyone? Or just spaced out a bit? What's so hard about letting people do that?


Honestly I'm curious to your answers. I've never met someone who has taken such a strong position in this way with so little tangible evidence to support it.


By the way, I wrote this entire post after smoking a bowl. Does it show? Is my writing spaced out?

Just think a little bit more about what you know. You do not possess a complete knowledge of the world and how people live and what different substances do to them. Don't be so judgmental.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Oops - you are indeed not the OP. My mistake. Continuing on...

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I updated my post above because I accidentally hit the reply button. Luckily there are more posts to respond to down here so I'll continue here 🙂

So I agree, decrim drugs (not legalize), instead of jail, fines and other administrative penalties (loss of drivers and professional licenses, state welfare benefits, workers comp, gun ownership license, alimony, etc). I think that would be a great idea!

For Marijuana that may work given that the effects are much more mild than the other drugs. But speed/heroin/crack - you are kidding yourself if that should be decriminalized.

All of these drugs were in fact legal at one time - opium was smoked in China, heroin was used as a painkiller (and in fact still is today in the UK), speed/methamphetamines have been given to US forces for decades, most famously to WWII pilots, but also to soldiers until as recently as 2003. Ritalin is chemically very similar to speed. Oxycontin, also a prescription drug, is chemically very similar to heroin.

The coca leaf has been consumed in moderation by indigenous South American people for decades. Crack is a bastardized version of cocaine that is a direct result of prohibition that pushes these drugs into the black market, where their content cannot be regulated.

Gamingphreek, the real problem here is that you admit to being underinformed about the substances about which you are busting people

I know enough to know that it is harmful among other things. Not only that, it isn't my place to debate the rules that I have to enforce. In fact, at the first sense of drugs, I am not allowed to act at all other than call the police.

Again, you are deferring to authority without question. As I and many others have shown here, simple marijuana use is not harmful, provided the person smokes it where it doesn't offend others, doesn't drive a car, etc. Start thinking for yourself, and stop seeing the world in black and white.

And if you don't understand nakedfrog's most recent post about ridiculous laws on the books in many states, you don't even understand your own position. You're busting these people because of laws yet you can't seem the complete insanity of some laws out there.

You are comparing the OBVIOUSLY goofy laws (ie: Walking an Elephant on a sidewalk) to DRUGS?!

While I don't think those absurd laws are the best basis of comparison, there is nothing goofy about throwing an innocent marijuana user in jail for several years, giving that person a criminal record and depriving them of opportunities to work and travel. That causes a disproportionate amount of harm to that person, compared to the negligible harm they cause from their marijuana use.

There is nothing goofy about DEA agents mistakenly storming the wrong property and killing innocent people. This has happened and will continue to happen if we do not change these laws.

Prohibition ruins lives.

2nd edit: Also it's obvious you're not a statistician of any kind. Either that or you bombastically call into question studies/numbers which conflict with your personal world view. Regardless you're taking a very specific position with very little evidence/experience.

I'm merely asking how in the world we can get statistics on drugs. If they are illegal how in the world can we accurately estimate how many people use them or don't use them?? I'm saying that I can't see how those numbers have any quantifiable proof behind them.

-Kevin

Ok, here are some statistics for you. Read The Culture of Fear.

It's 10 years old now, but it makes excellent points about legal vs. illegal drug abuse. In the US, as of 1999, over 90% of drug abuse is through LEGAL drugs. Just 10% from illegal drugs. Yet we spend a hugely disproportionate amount of money trying (and failing) to solve the illegal drug problem.

Decriminalize and regulate currently-illegal drugs, and then we can focus on the real problem: prescription drug abuse.

The best way to gather statistics on drug users is to see how many access treatment facilities, needle exchanges, etc. And the best way to provide more of these services is to decriminalize these drugs and encourage users to access these facilities and not fear repercussions.

 

[nakedfrog]

Well, then we fall to picking who decides what is and isn't an irresponsible act, as we have determined that responsibility can be determined outside a legal framework. The problem here is that some things are not determined via the same basis as others. There are indisputably OTC drugs that pose a greater risk than marijuana, and their primary purpose is "to make you feel better". If you have a headache, or a muscle ache, you'll eventually feel better without taking any of these OTC drugs. We can buy something that's much easier to take a fatal dose of by the economy size bottle for five dollars. It's plain to see that marijuana isn't going anywhere, so we can either continue the same expensive (both in terms of money and lives) path we're on now, or change and decriminalize it to at least some point, so it can be controlled. It can't even be properly studied as other drugs are before approval due to the level of legality.

 

[JulesMaximus]

It's funny, when I was in Portugal last summer it was the tourists that people were pushing the drugs on. This was in the big cities though, out in the small cities and country I found no evidence of drug use or availability.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Being an RA, there is no enforcement of your enforcement of the rules. You are not strictly required (in a consequences type way) to narc out marijuana smokers.

Wow you also know how to insult with the whole 'narc' comments. Really degrades your argument when you do that - just FYI.

And yes I am strictly required!! What kind of ridiculous logic is this?? I would get fired for merely turning a blind eye toward this!!

I tried to let someone go for having open containers of alcohol and caught him later for the exact same thing (After I made him dump it out). Turns out it was lucky I did because that is absolutely not allowed either.

Anonymous surveys man. If someone has nothing to lose, presumably they have nothing to hide. Statistical comparisons are made off strictly controlled questions asked to people who are told beforehand that there is no risk to them. It benefits society to allow these things to happen.

Also, following along that point, if something became legal, don't you think more people would be willing to admit they are using drugs? Then why did the number go down in Portugal and in the 14 states mentioned in the post we're talking about?

Because people never lie... People never mess around when taking polls. Not only that, anonymously polling a small amount of people is horribly inaccurate. If you polled everyone in this thread whether or not they have used Marijuana before, right now it looks like 2 wouldn't have an 5 would have. Certainly isn't reflecting the actual percentage...

hiding behind legalism in your quest to 'help' people rid themselves of things YOU think are bad. Essentially you're forcing your beliefs on them.

I think killing is bad too. Should I just let it slide if I see someone killing someone else? See I can make over generalizations also.

Do either of these things jive with your philosophy? Or are you doing something else? There is NO EVIDENCE of marijuana being physically or mentally harmful to the people who use it.

First it was in small doses there wasn't much harm. Now there is no harm at any dose... Whats going on?

Again, you are deferring to authority without question. As I and many others have shown here, simple marijuana use is not harmful, provided the person smokes it where it doesn't offend others, doesn't drive a car, etc. Start thinking for yourself, and stop seeing the world in black and white.

I have my own opinions on drugs as I have shown. It just so happens that all the laws and rules at my college agree with my stance. Having said that, once again, there is no letting it slide at a job!!!

While I don't think those absurd laws are the best basis of comparison, there is nothing goofy about throwing an innocent marijuana user in jail for several years, giving that person a criminal record and depriving them of opportunities to work and travel

I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen except in more extreme cases. A small amount of Marijuana, to my knowledge, doesn't get anyone jail time. After you have a certain amount; however, it is determined as intent to distribute and then you do have those situations.

There is nothing goofy about DEA agents mistakenly storming the wrong property and killing innocent people. This has happened and will continue to happen if we do not change these laws.

Well it isn't like that is the intention. Additionally, when it does happen, I am very sure it is a very very rare occurence.

I agree that the system needs work. There needs to be treatment facilities readily available among other things. But decriminalizing it, in my opinion, shouldn't happen.

Well, then we fall to picking who decides what is and isn't an irresponsible act, as we have determined that responsibility can be determined outside a legal framework. The problem here is that some things are not determined via the same basis as others. There are indisputably OTC drugs that pose a greater risk than marijuana, and their primary purpose is "to make you feel better". If you have a headache, or a muscle ache, you'll eventually feel better without taking any of these OTC drugs. We can buy something that's much easier to take a fatal dose of by the economy size bottle for five dollars.

I agree that is odd and very much judgement based. I honestly don't know what else you want me to say regarding that. I agree that OTC and Prescription drugs can provide just as much harm in many cases.

-Kevin

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I agree that is odd and very much judgement based. I honestly don't know what else you want me to say regarding that. I agree that OTC and Prescription drugs can provide just as much harm in many cases.

-Kevin

Well, you could admit the hypocrisy and that it shouldn't be demonized, and support some level of legalization.

 

[iGas]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Being an RA, there is no enforcement of your enforcement of the rules. You are not strictly required (in a consequences type way) to narc out marijuana smokers.

Wow you also know how to insult with the whole 'narc' comments. Really degrades your argument when you do that - just FYI.

And yes I am strictly required!! What kind of ridiculous logic is this?? I would get fired for merely turning a blind eye toward this!!

I tried to let someone go for having open containers of alcohol and caught him later for the exact same thing (After I made him dump it out). Turns out it was lucky I did because that is absolutely not allowed either.

Anonymous surveys man. If someone has nothing to lose, presumably they have nothing to hide. Statistical comparisons are made off strictly controlled questions asked to people who are told beforehand that there is no risk to them. It benefits society to allow these things to happen.

Also, following along that point, if something became legal, don't you think more people would be willing to admit they are using drugs? Then why did the number go down in Portugal and in the 14 states mentioned in the post we're talking about?

Because people never lie... People never mess around when taking polls. Not only that, anonymously polling a small amount of people is horribly inaccurate. If you polled everyone in this thread whether or not they have used Marijuana before, right now it looks like 2 wouldn't have an 5 would have. Certainly isn't reflecting the actual percentage...

hiding behind legalism in your quest to 'help' people rid themselves of things YOU think are bad. Essentially you're forcing your beliefs on them.

I think killing is bad too. Should I just let it slide if I see someone killing someone else? See I can make over generalizations also.

Do either of these things jive with your philosophy? Or are you doing something else? There is NO EVIDENCE of marijuana being physically or mentally harmful to the people who use it.

First it was in small doses there wasn't much harm. Now there is no harm at any dose... Whats going on?

Again, you are deferring to authority without question. As I and many others have shown here, simple marijuana use is not harmful, provided the person smokes it where it doesn't offend others, doesn't drive a car, etc. Start thinking for yourself, and stop seeing the world in black and white.

I have my own opinions on drugs as I have shown. It just so happens that all the laws and rules at my college agree with my stance. Having said that, once again, there is no letting it slide at a job!!!

While I don't think those absurd laws are the best basis of comparison, there is nothing goofy about throwing an innocent marijuana user in jail for several years, giving that person a criminal record and depriving them of opportunities to work and travel

I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen except in more extreme cases. A small amount of Marijuana, to my knowledge, doesn't get anyone jail time. After you have a certain amount; however, it is determined as intent to distribute and then you do have those situations.

There is nothing goofy about DEA agents mistakenly storming the wrong property and killing innocent people. This has happened and will continue to happen if we do not change these laws.

Well it isn't like that is the intention. Additionally, when it does happen, I am very sure it is a very very rare occurence.

I agree that the system needs work. There needs to be treatment facilities readily available among other things. But decriminalizing it, in my opinion, shouldn't happen.

Well, then we fall to picking who decides what is and isn't an irresponsible act, as we have determined that responsibility can be determined outside a legal framework. The problem here is that some things are not determined via the same basis as others. There are indisputably OTC drugs that pose a greater risk than marijuana, and their primary purpose is "to make you feel better". If you have a headache, or a muscle ache, you'll eventually feel better without taking any of these OTC drugs. We can buy something that's much easier to take a fatal dose of by the economy size bottle for five dollars.

I agree that is odd and very much judgement based. I honestly don't know what else you want me to say regarding that. I agree that OTC and Prescription drugs can provide just as much harm in many cases.

-Kevin

You have way too much time on your hand. A summer job and a girl friend may take some of the intensity off you.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: iGas
You have way too much time on your hand. A summer job and a girl friend may take some of the intensity off you.

It's funny, after reading this whole thread, I was left thinking "This guy really needs to get laid..."

:laugh:

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
*snip*

This is essentially a bunch of artless dodges with lame strawmen (did you really miss the point about thinking about the laws you're enforcing? Obviously reporting murder is an action without question. The fact that you think of legal equivalencies in that way at all speaks volumes), baseless statements, and assumptions. Any more response to this would be a waste of bits.

Enjoy living your life caring so much about other people who will likely not feel likewise. If the stress gets to you, try lighting up. The best part about mj smokers is that they won't begrudge your previous disagreements. In my life I've never seen a person who was only stoned (not drunk) act aggressively towards anyone.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Being an RA, there is no enforcement of your enforcement of the rules. You are not strictly required (in a consequences type way) to narc out marijuana smokers.

Wow you also know how to insult with the whole 'narc' comments. Really degrades your argument when you do that - just FYI.

And yes I am strictly required!! What kind of ridiculous logic is this?? I would get fired for merely turning a blind eye toward this!!

I tried to let someone go for having open containers of alcohol and caught him later for the exact same thing (After I made him dump it out). Turns out it was lucky I did because that is absolutely not allowed either.

Anonymous surveys man. If someone has nothing to lose, presumably they have nothing to hide. Statistical comparisons are made off strictly controlled questions asked to people who are told beforehand that there is no risk to them. It benefits society to allow these things to happen.

Also, following along that point, if something became legal, don't you think more people would be willing to admit they are using drugs? Then why did the number go down in Portugal and in the 14 states mentioned in the post we're talking about?

Because people never lie... People never mess around when taking polls. Not only that, anonymously polling a small amount of people is horribly inaccurate. If you polled everyone in this thread whether or not they have used Marijuana before, right now it looks like 2 wouldn't have an 5 would have. Certainly isn't reflecting the actual percentage...

hiding behind legalism in your quest to 'help' people rid themselves of things YOU think are bad. Essentially you're forcing your beliefs on them.

I think killing is bad too. Should I just let it slide if I see someone killing someone else? See I can make over generalizations also.

Do either of these things jive with your philosophy? Or are you doing something else? There is NO EVIDENCE of marijuana being physically or mentally harmful to the people who use it.

First it was in small doses there wasn't much harm. Now there is no harm at any dose... Whats going on?

Again, you are deferring to authority without question. As I and many others have shown here, simple marijuana use is not harmful, provided the person smokes it where it doesn't offend others, doesn't drive a car, etc. Start thinking for yourself, and stop seeing the world in black and white.

I have my own opinions on drugs as I have shown. It just so happens that all the laws and rules at my college agree with my stance. Having said that, once again, there is no letting it slide at a job!!!

While I don't think those absurd laws are the best basis of comparison, there is nothing goofy about throwing an innocent marijuana user in jail for several years, giving that person a criminal record and depriving them of opportunities to work and travel

I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen except in more extreme cases. A small amount of Marijuana, to my knowledge, doesn't get anyone jail time. After you have a certain amount; however, it is determined as intent to distribute and then you do have those situations.

There is nothing goofy about DEA agents mistakenly storming the wrong property and killing innocent people. This has happened and will continue to happen if we do not change these laws.

Well it isn't like that is the intention. Additionally, when it does happen, I am very sure it is a very very rare occurence.

I agree that the system needs work. There needs to be treatment facilities readily available among other things. But decriminalizing it, in my opinion, shouldn't happen.

Well, then we fall to picking who decides what is and isn't an irresponsible act, as we have determined that responsibility can be determined outside a legal framework. The problem here is that some things are not determined via the same basis as others. There are indisputably OTC drugs that pose a greater risk than marijuana, and their primary purpose is "to make you feel better". If you have a headache, or a muscle ache, you'll eventually feel better without taking any of these OTC drugs. We can buy something that's much easier to take a fatal dose of by the economy size bottle for five dollars.

I agree that is odd and very much judgement based. I honestly don't know what else you want me to say regarding that. I agree that OTC and Prescription drugs can provide just as much harm in many cases.

-Kevin

You have way too much time on your hand. A summer job and a girl friend may take some of the intensity off you.

Also, Kevin, take a stats class please before telling us how horribly inaccurate anonymous surveys are.

 

[Vic]

Not at all surprising.

 

[manowar821]

We don't need a war against drugs, we need a drug against war.

 

[ahenkel]

pretty good article http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/buckley1.html

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: manowar821
We don't need a war against drugs, we need a drug against war.

Here you go.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Yea sure... Portugal = United States

Population of Portugal: 10,676,910
Populationg of USA: 304,059,724

Totally the same :roll:

Not only that, can someone please explain how you get a "Drug Usage Statistic"? It would seem to me that if we new precisely what percentage of our population was using drugs we would be able to catch them...

-Kevin

Not too good with probabilities are you, genius.

10 million is more than amble sample.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: manowar821
We don't need a war against drugs, we need a drug against war.

Here you go.

That's exactly what I was thinking of when I said it. KMFDM FTW.

 

[kalrith]

While I may not agree with Gamingphreek's views and ascertations in this thread, I agree with what he did as an RA. For everyone calling him a narc, he said that other residents in the dorm pointed out the MJ usage to him. They were the narcs, and had he done nothing, they could've gone above his head, and he would've lost his position as an RA. If the students didn't want to get caught, then they should've been smoking at a friend's house rather than in the dorms. I see it the same way as I see drinking on a dry campus. If they want to drink, they can do it elsewhere and not get in trouble, but if they drink in the room next to the RA and other students report them, then it's part of the RA's job to report them.

Obviously people have different views about what should and shouldn't be legal when it comes to drugs, and I'm not even going to touch on that debate.

 

[WelshBloke]

This is where the USA confuses me.

You have probably the most punitive laws in the first world for marijuana use, but your last three Presidents all used it. 😕

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
This is where the USA confuses me.

You have probably the most punitive laws in the first world for marijuana use, but your last three Presidents all used it. 😕

We have a long tradition of being afraid that people will enjoy themselves too much.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

I have a friend who is happily married with a five year old son. He smokes daily, with his son in the house. He doesn't smoke ALOT though. Puffs, here and there. He makes about $70,000 a year as a network tech, has full insurance benefits, and about $100,000 in his savings account.

His son is like the smartest kid in his class. His marriage is going great. He's very happy.

I'd rather have my kids over with him, then with a family that drinks beer all day.

I would allow a child of mine over to either house.

Not only is he breaking the law, but, in that, he is neglecting the health and well being of the child.

-Kevin

Everything is just black and white with you isn't it? No color in your judgement I see.

He's breaking a barbaric law. One that should be repealled. It's bad because it's illegal right? It's illegal because it's bad?

How is he neglecting the health and well being of the child? By smoking mj around him? I don't believe that, because I know the truth. He isn't subjecting the child to a smoke filled room. He does however, make sure his kid gets a proper diet, goes to bed ontime, does his homework, gets excercise, etc. He's actually one hell of a father. But you discount him due to ignorance.

(In response to bolded part) Thats good, that is pretty much expected of parents. Now if he would stop doing drugs in front of a child that would be responsible -- unless, of course, teaching his child that drugs and breaking the law are A-OK.

Yes it is black and white. If something is illegal, it is illegal. There are no if's, and's or but's about it. Illegal is illegal.

-Kevin

The same people that allow this sort of blind faith in authority to rule them that allow totalitarian regimes to own them.

 

[Gothgar]

how much does this war on drugs cost us per year?