In America, people have a right to wear sagging pants

You had me with you until you started bashing Jesse Lowe's efforts. You can nit-pick the issue of whether drugs really bring death or not, but that's just what it is, nit-picking. I am glad to see someone in the community finally stand up and make such a bold statement and continue to press on with his crusade. We have lost enough young innocent children with a world of potential and possibilities ahead of them to the efforts of drug dealers and all others who make their way by preying on these little ones. Why in the world would you bash someone who is seriously TRYING to open people's eyes and make a real difference????? Geeez, save your tirades for people who actually deserve them.

IIII Yiiii Yiiii...Thomas.
Yup, the pants down look is quite a stupid look, agreed. We don't need a law for that. I am too old to wear my pants hanging that low, so I just pull my Tiddy Whiteys up about 8 inches over my belly and open my shirt. Cchicks dig it and it gives me that selfinflicted wedgy we all secretly enjoy!
Of course we all now that drugs don't bring death. I, like you, scoff at those mothers who morn their children that died from overdoses of ilegal drugs. I have no pitty for the kids and spouses who no longer have a mother or father becuse they died trying to reach that nervana that your beloved drugs bring. Yes Tom, you are right. Drugs don't bring death. The numbers I have posted in the past, of drug related deaths both here and in the countrys that make it legal, are just all lies. No one has ever died from drugs. I am sure most of them just overdosed because they saw a swat team and decided to kill themseves. We all know that the DEA has mind control lazor beams that force people to seek out and use illegal drugs for the purpose of busting them and maybe getting a chance to shoot them too.
Get the facts Tom, count the number of deaths form overdoses in the USA, and compare that to the number of deaths caused by drug law enforcement. By your statement, you are saying that the war on drugs MUST take more lives than the drugs themselves. Show me your numbers to suport that statement. Show us all how the DEA, SWAT teams and law inforcement all combined kill more people than drugs do. We are waiting.

D J Sulkin

Maybe Thomas, doesn't care for *Community Organizers*

I take issue with your statement that drugs do not bring death. There have been several incidents of drug overdose deaths that have been publicized in the newspaper that you work for, so I would have hoped that you had heard about them. You've made the point often enough that the government needn't protect us from our own stupidity, but don't pull out patent untruths in an effort to make your case for legalizing drugs. Drugs, both legal and illegal drugs, can and do bring death every day.

Actually, I think it's Tom who likes attention.

Lucente -

Here's why I like you. We can blatantly disagree on a nearly black and white level on some issues (Palin, environment), and then you can write a piece like this which I agree with.

I wouldn't want to deride Lowe's efforts, because I think he's barking up the right tree in terms of trying to hold citizens accountable for their own neighborhoods, but I think you're right -- Drugs bring Death is a pretty simplistic and misunderstanding motto. I guess the point is, in the end, is it working? If it is, maybe it's better to leave it alone. As politicians on a national level keep reminding us, whether it's Change You Can Believe In or The Maverick, an effective slogan often has little to do with the facts.

It could be that from time to time Tom just likes say somethng so obviously wrong, and just plain nuts,to get the rest of us thinking. I know Tom can read because he can write.
What I can not do is vouch for his ability to understand math. Because there are no numbers anywhere to support his claim that the war on drugs brings death...and that drug use/abuse does not. I know Tom said before he would never drink and post on his blog. But he never said he wouldn't fire up a fatty and post....hummmmmmm

Thomas, is right Lowe's Drugs bring Death crusade, is a waste of time.
people are aware drugs can kill, Lowe should be pointing his finger at
people like baby daddy Leonard Pitts, and poverty pimp Derry Glenn,
who's practice of irresponsibility and victimhood, have helped perpetuate
the government's war on it's own citizens.

Tom, I agree with you 100% on your first paragraph. I too, find it utterly ridiculous having the arse showing, but I also find it more than just utterly ridiculous trying to push for a law banning it. If I am not going to let the government tell me that I can not own a gun, then I damn sure am not going to let the government tell me how to dress. Although, I personally would not dress that way to begin with, but that's besides the point.

As for your rant on Jesse Lowe, well, I have to disagree. But I am not going to go down the same tired road with you on this.

I do agree, a law or ordinance banning the sag, is un-American.

Hey, I see nothing wrong with people wearing saggy pants, leave them alone!!!! Remember the comedian who said stupid people should wear a sign that says, "I am stupid" or something like that. I want to know if I may be enteracting with a stupid person. Wearing saggy pants tells me that this is so. I am in Lima, and I need to get to the nearest Panara Bread - I walk up to a dude with his pants down to his knee caps, I know right away this guy is stupid and does not know which way is up, so I move on to the next person who is wearing a belt to get the directions I need. Leave these people alone they are doing everyone a favor by letting us all know they are....well, not so bright.

In all seriousness, I think this guy who wants a law aganist saggy pants is wrong. As much as I hate that look, it is their freedom to look stupid, but, I grew up in a time when legg warmers where the in thing, that looks pertty bad now thinking back

Is there anyway we could get Fouquet to add people with nontraditional hair color, multiple body piercing, exposed tattoos, clothing out of the current style, clothing too tight for the wearer, toddlers too old with pacifiers and or bottles and any other expression of individuality we do not like to his Council request?

Drugs clearly do bring death, through overdoses, traffic accidents, child abuse... Come talk to me, Tom, when you have a very young grandchild who has been encouraged by his parent to smoke pot. Or an infant grandchild whose mother pops him into a scalding bath or a microwave, under the influence of drugs. Legalizing drugs would only embolden more people to commit such insanity.
As for having a community dress code, this is the natural evolution of a society that uses liberty as license. When liberty is confused with license, so many people become so selfish, it becomes repugnant to those who seek decency and civility.
What's that old phrase "Your liberty ends where my nose begins." Or something like that. In this case, your indecency ends where my eyes - and the eyes of my child begin. There are nude beaches, strip clubs and of course, the privacy of one's own home, where people can display whatever they choose. But in public - in places where the rest of us must travel - there have always been public indecency laws. There just haven't been so many people pushing the limits as there are today.

Tom,
Right on. I also proposed that the war on drugs brings death in TLN message board, but that perhaps is also too broad a statement to ever be true. Assuming that everyone here is intelligent enough to agree that the SWAT team doesn't need to conduct raids for sagging pants, I'll tackle comment on the drug issue.
People can and do overdose on cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and ALCOHOL (gasp) sometimes. BUT, the "Drugs bring death" movement was born out of the gun violence that has plagued our city, and not a desire to lower relatively modest overdose statistics for Lima per capita. The gun violence in Lima is not caused by drugs bringing death, rather its caused by the fact that there has always been, and will always be a demand for mind-altering substances in society. By blanket criminalization, we've pushed that demand into the realm of street thugs.
If that fact doesn't persuade you, then consider for a moment that the ANNUAL budget for the DEA has now ballooned to $2.4 Billion. Then consider that the "war" on drugs in this country which has officially been going on for over 20 years, convicts mainly marijuana users (approx. 66%). No one has overdosed on marijuana, but people have died in pot deals gone bad, because the only people that deal in it are criminals, courtesy of our failed drug policy.
But then again, instead of taking an unpopular stance against a failed policy that kills thousands and costs billions, why not get your knickers in a bunch over some fully-clothed teenager with his pants lower than you'd like.

Liberty or death:
I have posted before on this subject also. I am not going back and look up exact numbers, you can do that yourself. However, the money spent every year to treat people addicted to illegal drugs, especialy cocain, meth, heroin far surpasses the 2.4 billion you say the war on drugs costs. Never mind the cost of "ALCOHOL"9 (gasp) as you put it. Also the money the 'war on drugs' costs go to a wide range of things including DARE programs, all MEDIA messages etc.
And guess what? GASP!!! Its working!!! The latest numbers out show a DECLINE in the age group of 12-18 year olds trying ilegal dugs for the 1st time to under 10%. 9.2 I believe is the number. The only real increase was the 18-25 group that have been taking MOM and DADS scrips...mostly Oxycontin. NOT cocain etc. So as in any change society makes, it takes time. And enforcment and education. Thats exactly what the war on drugs has been doing and the numbers shore that up as fact. You sound like a pot smoker, which is fine by me. Back in the day, 30 years ago, before I grew out of it, I smoked too. So I know how it can twist your thinking and stunt you mental growth.

danimal, when I ask you what is up with you in Thomas' last thread, what I wanted
to know is why is it if someone like Rollo, doesn't care for Lara Croft, he's a demoRAT,
if someone like libertyordeath, is down on the War on Drugs, he's smoking dope.
I absolutely detest the War on Drugs just as much as Thomas does. Not because of what harm it does to the individual who uses, but because it's killing my fourth amendment rights and is playing hell on my fifth and sixth amendment rights also.

Sgt Dad,
My use of the word demoRAT is clearly to show my personal opinion of liberals who continue to slam, for example, Sara Palin, and try to discredit her run as VP becuse they claim she has no right to be there. It's all there in Rollo's post, It's getting harder and harder to find a real democrat, so I choose the RAT ending for all those who have ruined that party. Just as I have used 'republiCONS when I talk about the group that has ruined the Republican party.
4th Amendment...the Bill of Rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sounds pretty clear. However, the words "supported by "OATH or AFFIRMATION speak loudly here. Taken litterally all I have to do is tell law enforcment(swear it is so) I saw Jon Doe rob a bank,and enter the yellow house on the corner of 1st and Main, they have the right to go get him, search him and look for the cash. It would only be a 4th amendment issue if they went door to door and search every one with out cause. That would be unreasonable.

5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
Some say the patriot act crosses these lines. But do they really? the subsentance:
"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" sugestes that if used properly, the Patriot act falls within these lines.
6th amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Maybe it would help me if I knew exactly how your 6th amendment rights have been violated.
simply stated, the BILL of RIGHTS was not intended to protect CRIMINALS, it was intended for those who abide by the LAW, like you and I I assume.
But If I had a bag of drugs and you swore to it, the cops have every right to come get me, and I would not have had my rights violated. Thats how I read the text anyway.
Also I will admit, I enjoy the antagonist side of debate, Thus the colorful (if somewhat unfounded) twists on peoples posts!
I eagerly await your responce!!!!!!!!!

Danimal,
I didn't say arbitrarily come up with $2.4 billion. I VERY clearly stated that this is the annual operating budget of the DEA. (try and keep up) You bring up DARE?! Research has shown that kids that went through DARE were MORE likely to have tried illegal drugs, so I guess you are wrong there too.
Oh and only Oxycontin and other scrips use is up? Why is that safer/better? Oxycontin is synthetic heroin, and its nearly as deadly. The only difference is that Uncle Sam gets a bigger cut of the profit.
Your problem, is that you trust the government too much. I love my country enough to be constantly vigilant against the tyranny of corruption and injustice. The fact that you would say that the War on Drugs is working when nearly every non-government sponsored research project shows otherwise, is laughable. We have 2 million people in prison in this country, many for non-violent drug offenses, so there are other reasons for your statistics. Besides, its also pretty well documented that the CIA has imported tons and tons of herion and cocaine into this country in exchange for favors from Latin American guerrilla groups, so don't be so self-righteous.

Speaking of the drug war. Very interested video on google video called "The American drug war". It is an interesting watch.
Eleanor

I may have to check that out Elie. It's not like I'm advocating drug use, but throwing addicts into cages with violent criminals is doing the opposite of the intended effect. Research has shown that rehabilitation is more effective than incarceration. Not to mention, what does a person with a felony drug conviction do for work? Even if they want to reform their life, they are hard-pressed to find an employer to hire a ex-con.
Its too bad that a person who proposes a common sense solution to a failed drug policy gets accused of being a pot-head.

liberty or whatever,
No one claimed you came up with 2.4 billion arbitrarily. Depending on the sorece the number ranges from 2.1 to 3.2. What I said was, (and now read carefuly):
"However, the money spent every year to treat people addicted to illegal drugs, especialy cocain, meth, heroin far surpasses the 2.4 billion you say the war on drugs costs." I am not doubting the 2.4 billion. I am stating the fact that addiction costs eclipse that number by tens of billions. And THAT is the number I suggested you look up for yourself. It will do you good to get educated on just what addiction costs due to illegal drugs. Add in the addiction to legal drugs and the numbers become just a blur. A meaningless pile of zeros. I have also in the past reported on the numbers from other countries that have legalized drugs, and in every case, they saw a rise in addiction and drug related crime.
I also NEVER EVER said Oxicontin or MEd-cabinat drugs were better or safer. I dont know how you came to that diluted conclusion. What I said was, (now read carfuly):
"The only real increase was the 18-25 group that have been taking MOM and DADS scrips...mostly Oxycontin." (Thats from an article on yahoo..I am trying to refind it).
Your statement that "nearly every non-government studie suggests the war on drugs is not working" is a bold faced ( or uniformed) lie. There are about an equal number of studies that show numbers in both directions. Just google it and with an open mind read both sides.
And I too am angered by the CIA's actions and want heads to roll for those deals also. I want prison, times 2, for anyone in on those deals.
And for you to pretend to know me well enough to say I trust the government TOO MUCH, is speculation and jibberish. I too want our freedoms back. No more or no less than the Constitution and the the first 10 amendments, (the Bill of Rights) affords us.
But taking snippets of those amendments and trying to say your rights are violated is self serving idiocy. They are to be read in FULL context and when an issue arises, it's to be placed with the courts and the courts decide. Sorry, Mr. Wonderland, but thats the way it works. You got a better system, go buy an island and start your own drug abusing, anything I want goes, utopia. I will send you a card on the 4th of JULY

danimal,
I'm not interested in debating you on The War on Drugs.
But maybe you can justify the government's impoverishment of Mr
and Mrs Luther Ricks Sr, using your Bank Robber and Patriot Act analogy..
Convince me their amendment rights weren't violated in the War on Drugs.

Sgt. Dad.
Tragic misuse of power, no doubt. But the laws that are being enforced here are not from the Patriot Act. The money was taken because an illegal substance, no matter the amount was found in the home. That law was around long before the Patriot Act.
Now sometimes, a Duck may walk and quack, and still be a duck.
Do you think these robbers just choose a house at random? In that neighbor hood and said.."WOW, lets go rob that place, it looks like they are holding half a million dollars in there." NO, I have seen the house. No one would ever confuse it with someone holding 400k and change. These robbers knew the money was there, as they had done buisness at that address before. And growing up inLima and spending most of my life here, and working all my life, I have met and made friends with all types of folks. Some of these folks have said they knew Mr. Ricks, and he did in fact run a small buisness there for years.
What that busness was , I have no idea. And I am not about to make a judgement on him, or his son.
So is it an injustice. Yes, I believe it is. Is it a Patriot Act issue? No.
Were their rights violated? hummmmmmmm....That leads me to this question. Did he have marijuana in his house? Every story I can find says, yes he did.
Guilty of muder? NO WAY!...Breaking the drug laws, as they stand today? Yes.
If no drugs were ther, he would still have the cash. Tragic, but true. You dance with the one that brung ya.

I know the seizure of Mr Ricks, life savings had nothing to do with the Patriot Act
You just happened to bring it up in your first comment to me.
As I know you can't justify the taking of Ricks, money, the LPD, FBI, would have stolen
Ricks,money regardless of drugs in the house or not.
But I like the your statement that you have no idea what his business was, but you
won't pass judgement on him,but you apparently have no problem with police making
a judgement on him..

Drugs do bring death. But bumper stickers don't save lives. That said, I commend Jesse Lowe for at least trying to do something to help. Does it help? Probly not. But it definetly does no harm, so I don't see the point in picking on him.

If anyone here wants to really know what the drug war is all about, shoot me a private e-mail at eliepaige@yahoo.com with your mailing address. I will send you a DVD that explains it all. I'll even pay for the postage.
Eleanor

Eleanor,
You changed your screen name, why, just curious.

Tom, at least Jesse Lowe is doing something positive. You should try it. You are a very negative man. What a downer you must be at parties.

Scant,
When I created my user name way back when, that is what I used. For the longest time, everytime I posted I would enter that goofy code and would have to type my name . Now it just keeps me logged in, which is nice and I don't have to type all that.
Was wondering who was going to notice it first. Very observant you are.
Eleanor

Sgt. Dad,
Please enlighten me. Why do YOU think they took Rick's money? Did he or did he not have drugs in the house? You said the LPD and FBI would have taken the cash, even if no drugs were at the house. Really? Crystal ball? How do you know the outcome of a senario that never happend? Almost sounds as if you are a personal friend of the Ricks, thus unable to think impartialy about this tragic event.

answering my question with more questions, trying to turn it in to a debate, then
trying to turn the debate on tangential points.
just stop dancing around danimal and answer my question, do you think that Luther Ricks was denied his 4th 5th 6th amendments rights and the right to due process.
keep in mind you stated it was tragic misuse of power

Sgt daddy,
OH, I see the question now...thanks for directions. But I answered this question. Mr. Ricks did in fact have an illegal drug in his home, and like it or agree with it or not, the law states personal property, ie: homes, cash, cars, etc can be confinscated.
Now, you ask my opinion. I think it was a rush to judgment, period. But were his rights violated? No, not according to the laws on the books. Thus no violation of 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment rights occured. Personaly, I think he should get his money back. Lawfully, it is what it is , as they say. My personal feelings, as are yours, have nothing to do with the law as it is written.

danimal,
you are absolutely clueless, you said it was a tragic misuse of power and an injustice
your very words precluded Ricks is innocent of drug dealing..
when this story first hit the street Thomas, wrote about two men transporting
$35k in a car through georgia, and the state police pulled their vehicle over,confiscated the cash these men had no drugs or had done anything illegal, they were sent on their
way,stripped of their amendment rights and no day in court, no recoarse what so ever
the police simply said they were drug dealers and shook them down, there are other similar incidents that are a matter of public record.
the police are using the asset forfeiture laws to rob people, and not charging them with crimes. the drug laws are trumping the constitution and a patriot like you is standing on the applauding..
open your eyes danimal, the false war on drugs is destroying this country

St dad
I never , ever said I thought Ricks was innocent of anything. Likewise is it not up to me to judge his guilt. Again, so you may have yet another chance to understand, I will put forth my view. FACT: Ricks did have illegal drugs in his house. Therfore, FACT: the confiscation of his money was within the law. Period. Read the law. I didn't say I lked the law. Just that until it / if it, is changed, it's still the law. That I believe the cops went overboard has no bearing on it. What you believe has no bearing on it. Drugs were in there, and so was the money, and it all happened over a suspicious "robbery"? Come on, get real.
And the case in Georgia you mentioned has nothing to do with it.
You can continue to insult me at will Sgt. but the law is the law. Don't like it? Get it changed.
Cocain and meth along with heroin are all going up in price and down in quality. Wonder why? It's because supply is down. Wonder why? It's because it's being intercepted in greater quantities than ever before. Add to that the demand is also down. Wonder why? Because through the efforts of enforcment AND education, less young people than in the past 50 years are trying illegal drugs. So whatever it is, it's working. Is there another front to fighting drugs other than the overall was on drugs? NO you say? Well then. Just how is this all going to destroy the whole country? Or let me put it another way. Just ONE question for you now. HOw, EXACTLY, is the 'war on drugs going to destroy the whole counrty?

danimal,
your not getting what I mean. Let me try a different tack alright. you said it's not
up to you to judge Luther Ricks, why not?

Sgt daddo,
ummmmm, Judge not, least ye be judged? All Ricks has to do is show hopw he got 400k to stash at home. He worked for it? OK, he goes to his incometax records and his past emplyer, get the proof of income. Then he shows what he paid out, ie: bills , housing, etc....and see whats left for savings. If he had investments, that will show up on the tax returns. So if he had disposable income that could be put into savings that even comes close to the 400k, there is all the proof he needs to get it back. The claim is he can't afford a lawyer. I KNOW that some lawyer would snatch this case up for if it was winnable. Also the ACLU made a stink about it, but they offered no help. That tells me there is a problem. And as the law is written, he has no way to show it was not from illgotten gains. If he did, the money would be back in his safe.
Now it's your turn Sgt. Answer me, just HOW E X A C T L Y is the war on drugs D E S T R O Y I N G this country?

oh I get it!.. your pro-choice! I'm sorry danimal, I didn't realize it.
sorry man!

SGt?
You lost me there dude. Pro choice about what?
And you still have not answered me. I have answered every one of your questions. Now pony up cowboy and tell me about the war on drugs destroying the USA.

I was going to try a different tack with you danimal, but here goes.
I ask you why you won't judge Ricks,and you reply was "judge not least ye be judged"
danimal, Luther Ricks, does not get to be judged..get it!...
even if Luther Ricks, produces tax receipts ,pay stubs, investments returns and proof
of a life long record of employment and witnesses to affirm it, Luther Ricks does not
get his day in court...EVER...thats why no lawyer can take his case,thats why the ACLUs hands are tied..the man was denied his constitutional rights to a day in court.
all courtesy of the asset forfieture law, a tool of the war on drugs, that overides the
constitution, a country with no constitution is no country..period!

Sgt. Dad,
The constitution clearly states who can make law, and how its to be done. I don't like sitting at a red light at 3:45am on my way to work when there is clearly no traffic in sight, but I do it because it is the law. Get it? It's a law that applys equally to everyone. It flat out does not matter what I think about it, it's the way it is.
Ricks can have his day in court. If there is proof, these are the cases lawyers JUMP at to make a name for themselves. If there were proof, a good lawyer would take the case for free, and sue the LPD and the FBI for the 400k plus interest and fees, and collect a large payday at the end of the trial. If there were proof, Ricks would make his own day in court and win, because it would require a jury trial, and the people of the jury would certainly award Mr. Ricks his money and a large damage penalty to the LPD and FBI, if only he had proof. Thats the way it works.
Put me on the jury and show me proof, and I would be the first to slap the city and the feds with a huge cash award, as would most everyone reading this. I am sure you will agree with that? Yes?
Now how is it , again that the war on drugs is destroying the USA? You still skirt that question. PLease answer it.

danimal's is driving his corvette along when he's pulled over by a police officer
the officer looks over danimal's corvette and accuses him and and his car of running
red lights at 3:45am and impounds danimals car, without charging him for the crime
all danimal has to do is go to court and prove he doesn't run redlights at 3:45am to
get his car back,but danimal has no proof, because there's no such thing as a witness
to a non-crime, so danimal is just SOL! and doesn't get his car back. thats what its like for Luther Ricks
Dr William Hurwitz, an imminent Dr. charged and sent to prison on charges of drug dealing because some of his prescriptions got out on the street, the prosecution didn't have to even prove he intended to distibute them for that purpose. only drug laws don't need intent while all the other crimes require it, that completely undermines the justice system,that's the last example I'm giving you that the war on drugs is destroying the country, net pick it and split hairs over it all you want. your minds made up even after fighting this war for the past 40 yrs you still thinks it's right.
oh yeah your statistics, they are just a minor part of the equation in this war on drugs
and you have based your whole reason for the war on some accountants crunching numbers..

Ummm...they don't impound cars for running red lights, unless of coures you are carring drugs, Or have no plates, or are DUI, or owe a ton of tickets from the past. In other words, unless another crime is involved (ie: Ricks drugs) they would not take my property.
DRugs are thier OWN intent. If you have them, you are either using them, or selling them. That shows intent right there.
On April 28, 2007 jurors found William E. Hurwitz guilty of 16 counts of drug trafficking and determined that he prescribed massive quantities of medicine to patients in chronic pain. The 12-member jury acquitted Hurwitz on 17 other trafficking counts. District Judge Leonie Brinkema dismissed the remaining 12 counts......
OH REALLY? A jury found him guilty? And with NO PROOF? Amazing....and....

The judge added that Hurwitz had undermined his own cause by ignoring that some patients were clearly drug dealers and Hurwitz admitted before sentencing that he had deceived himself about some patients who in retrospect were clearly criminals.
OH REALLY? . Ignorance in NOT A DEFENCE.
You keep pointing out cases where the people were breaking the law.
Oh and by the way.

1969 Study links crime and heroin addiction.
Psychiatrist Dr. Robert DuPont conducts urinalysis of everyone entering the D.C. jail system in August of 1969. He finds 44% test positive for heroin. DuPont convinces the city's Mayor Walter Washington to allow him to provide methadone to heroin addicts.

(that was ALL who entered, not just drug offenders.)
and

1970 Narcotics Treatment Administration is founded.

The Nixon administration provides funds to allow Dr. Robert DuPont to expand his methadone program in Washington D.C. The program is controversial because some believe methadone to be nothing more than a substitute for heroin, and others feel there are racial undertones behind the effort. However, one year after the program begins, burglaries in D.C. decrease by 41%.

NO KIDDING? Crime decreased when people were deprived of drugs? Amazing!
Shall we look at what happens in a country that turns a blind eye to drugs and drug trade/use?
1979 Carlos Lehder purchases property on Norman's Cay.
1979
(July 11) Cocaine trade becomes increasingly violent.
A deadly shootout between Colombian traffickers in broad daylight at Miami's Dadeland Mall brings the savagery of the Colombian cocaine lords to the attention of U.S. law enforcement.
1981-1982 Rise of the Medellin cartel
1982 Deal between Escobar and Noriega allows cocaine transport through Panama
1982
(March) Pablo Escobar is elected to the Colombian Congress
1982
(March 9) Largest cocaine seizure ever raises U.S. awareness of Medellin cartel.
1984
(April 30) Assassination of the Colombian attorney general fuels the extradition controversy
1985
(July 23) Colombian Superior Court Judge is assassinated
1985
(November 6) Attack on Colombian Supreme Court.
and the list goes on and on. So you propose we just turn the streets over to anyone and everyone that wants drugs, of any kind, no matter what?
and you OPPOSE BIG GOVERNMENT, but you say they very government can control the drugs if they were legal, creating yet ANOTHER HUGE DRAIN on the TAX PAYER?
Have you had you opperation yet? I belive it's called an "Abdo-Plexi" ....were they put plexi glass in you stomach so you can see to walk around with your head up your BUTT?
(read that on here on the old forum...love that line, but don't know who wrote it.) However, you need that done soon dude.

I guess the car anology was over your head, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
we'll just have to drop the ricks example, except to say why wasn't ricks arrested
and charged with drug trafficking , so he could have his day in court
so at least he could prove his money was stolen by the police on a technicality or something. even your buddy Obama's friend william ayers, was granted that privlege
and he was a bomb throwing terrorist, who actually was guilty.

I knew you would pull that! Hurwitz wasn't a drug dealer and the courts admitted his
prescriptions were in good faith, but the jury was told to ignore that, pretty much says it all, wiki isn't the only source for info danimal, also since then doctors are reluctant to prescribe the right amount of pain medication for fear of prosecution ,people are dying, thats on your wiki page too!
war on drugs isn't harming them a bit!

funny you would bring up the unholy spawn of this unholy drug war,drug cartels,
people who settle scores with chain saws. your statistics are a little outdated, since then
the mexican cartels have gained control of all the border towns, own the mexican army
and most of the state police,and now they buy politicians and are gaining in the government so much so that your CIA buddys do business with them.
nope the drug war had nothing to do with their creation.

oh and the war on drugs is a war on it's citizen regardless of what you say, you could
ask tarika wilson if she were around.. "BADGES WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING BADGES! AND WE GET TO KILL YOU WITH THE WARNING SHOT"

you keep going back to the law,and thats the whole point I tried to make in this discussion, this drug law was pulled from thin air by supreme court justice paul
stevens as was the roe vs wade law, which I'm sure you appreciate because it like the
drug law was based on the invisible part of the constitution the living breathing part
something a Obama supporter would understand.

you have based your whole opinion on statistics, and their only a minor part in this whole mess of a war. you have looked at these statistics and concluded the only why to stop drug addiction is to declare war on drugs, a substance, that danimal, would be no different then counting the dead after a battle and concluding the only way to stop war is to declare war on bullets. but your mind's made up and you refuse to see the light so live with your stubborness pal.

oh the plexi glass joke would have been funnier if you hadn't plagarized it.

in the future you might want to think before you write your comments,several times
I could have hung you on your own words, in your comments you said ricks was abused by the misuse of power and it was an injustice, thats right it was! those are your words and don't try to weasel out of them just scroll back and see for yourself!

do yourself a favor danimal, never get into a fistfight, you lead with you chin to much!

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.htm

end of discussion!

Sgt. Dad
Good post, laughable but still fun reading. I needed a bit of humor this morning.

always glad to provide a good laugh!

God you really are an idiot!!! I have several chances to promote my idea such as, at a rally, when i was on channel 44 for drugs bring death(they wanted to talk about it but I pushed it asside. I can get all the attention that I want but honestly I could care less!!! AS S!!!

WOW...Jeremy,
You must have went out and bought a computer?
You are only 75 days late with this post. And even at that, the post makes as much sense as your cause. You need to know that the baggy pants will go the way of platform shoes, dayglow, and tiedie. Its a fad that does not need laws...sure those folks look stupid, bhut it won't be for much longer.
I am to old to wear my pants that low, so I just pull my BVD's about 8 inches up on my guts, thats a real sweet look...ask the ladies!!!!!

hey danimal, I think we've just seen proof that drugs don't just bring death, they bring stupidity.

Susan,
Yeah,,maybe so .....But what I want to know is why the hot babes aint wearin' 'em down that low!!!!....

Go to Wetzel's motorcycle party, all the hot babes skinny dip! or walk around in nothing!

Sgtdad,
I was joking, IMO, girls that go to places like wetzel and and act like whores...are Ho bag trash. To tell the truth, I wouldn't really want much to do with a girl, hot or not, that shows it all in public....or in "dance clubs"....Gimme a good old fassioned girl anytime.

Holy Cow, I read the little comments on the right side of Tom's blog and read something about girls and pants and wearing them low and had to jump in here and see what was up! Danimal I bet if you were driving by Wetzel's you would look. If only just to give a full report back the information you seen to your brothers and sisters on the blog right Hey Sarg, you been there haven't you

Scant,
I polish the old HOG and go every year, and danimal, until you've seen an absolute
goddess walking around with nothing but beads on, you haven't lived, and ladies
have been wearing beads for centuries, so that would make them old fashioned girls
to say the least...

danimal, not being a "hot babe" myself, I can't really say why they don't wear their pants that low. Although, I have seen some of them wear very low-rise jeans just to make sure everyone can see that they're wearing a thong. I'm not sure men find that as disgusting as the saggy pants style guys wear though...hmmm....

As for Wetzel. I've never been there, but I've seen pictures. Yep, LOTS of nakey-time there. The sad thing is, there are a LOT of people, men and women, who have no business taking their clothes off even at home by themselves in the dark, let alone in front of innocent bystanders in the broad light of day. Scary... really really scary. But beer goggles are apparently very effective. (Just thought I should warn you before you guys decide it might be fun to make the trip this year)

Imagine The Golden Girls butt naked, tattoos that started out on much higher chests several years ago now stretched out and jiggling somewhere considerably lower, cheap beer in one hand, cigarette in the mouth, hanging all over Willie Nelson who just rode in on his Harley wearin nothing but cowboy boots and a hardhat-beerholder...

...and those are the young ones!

Sure, you could go to look at the hot babes walking around naked, in all their glorious splendor, but you never can predict when you'll turn a corner and be confronted with Willie and his homegirls doing things you never imagined or ever wish to see again. Is it really worth that risk?
(yea, I know, you're guys... there is no risk too great)

Hey, SgtG'sDad,

When you go to Wetzel.... do you go... um.... au naturale?

(you know you can post pictures here...right?)

"innocent bystanders" at Wetzels?!?! your kidding me right?

"(you know you can post pictures here...right?)"
before or after the male enhancement drugs?

uhh... oh my.

Wow, Jeremy, well said. I am an idiot.

Thanks

I suppose you must have slept through social studies class. You know, that part about this being a free country. Yet, you want to pass a law that dictates what people can wear. Don't you see how problematic that is?

I might be an idiot, but that makes you a tyrant who want to destroy the American way. I think I would rather be an idiot.

Susan, I have seen Cocker Spanial puppies become Dachshunds! Healthcare has its perks!

aaahahahahaha...thanks for that first laugh of the day, HappyG

WHAT THE?
I got yer dachshunds right here!!!!!
Sgtdad,
HU?
I have my own goddess, thank you, and find no need to look beyond her for beauty and insperation...She is a male inhancment drug, all by herself!!! Plus I have been a bit shallow myself since I was 13 and have always had 'godess types' ...but don't tell my 1st wife I ever said that!!!!

TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM...

TOM!

Did you guys see what "Mr FREEDOM" tom put on his last post?
AND I QUOTE
This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Mr. All American way...Mr. Freedom of the press...Mr. Libertarian Tom said we cannot discuss or coment on his last post.
Talk about totalitarian rule!!!! Talk about my way or the highway!!!!
I don't think even the TASS news in Russia holds those standards anymore!!!!
Whats up Tommy Boy?

lol!

I don't know why it was doing that. I fixed it though. I was wondering why no one was commenting on that post!

Susan. Yeah,
and these young chicks nowdays, the ones with the "tramp stamps" on their lower backs, like some butterfly across their tiny little backs, abouve what is now nice and firm....in 30 years,,(and less most times) those little butterfly wings will stretch into some monster looking taradactle or buzzard!!!!
Yes gimma a good ols fassionded godess that has skin that looks like...well, SKIN!
If I see a naked women....I WANT her to LOOK NAKED.....if I want colors, i'll paint her myself!!!!!! Fingerpainting is fun and wholesome!!!

GHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOM!
I thought it was just a fluke dude!!!! Just had to razz ya! my friend!