Limbaugh Says 10-Year Marriage at an End

[DoctorDoom]

Be that as it may, the WoD is NOT about alcohol. And does not the tragic toll taken by alcohol abuse because it is totally legal foreshadow the inevitable tragic result of ending the effort to stop killer drugs from flooding the country?

As for the stats, the gov site parallels them. So either they're all lying or they're all correct. And that still doesn't answer the question about the effects of total cessation of drug law enforcement.

All this is academic because we both know the WoD will continue. It MUST. There are far too many vermin out there who are trafficking in human misery for profit.

Re pot, I've said here before that IMO it should be legalized and restricted the same as booze. But, that's for the legislatures to do, not the drug enforcement departments. As long as the laws exist, they must be enforced, and the people who knowingly break them must accept the consequences of being caught doing so. That's not rocket science. It's pure logic.

IAC, there are far more pressing issues facing the country, John F'ing Kerry being the foremost.

[HarvickFan29]

The WoD is a war on the citizens of this country. For all the money spent and lives lost, drugs are as availbale as they have ever been. That fact alone is proof that it is a failure. Yet, we keep spending more and more money and getting the same result.

Wanting it to end doesn't mean those who support that are for drug use. It doesn't mean I don't want laws pertaining to drug abuse. It simply means I am sick of the big government abuse that the WoD has brought.

A huge profitable black market has built up since the WoD and that is the essence of the problem. Drugs are very expensive on the black market and per ounce, cocaine is higher than gold. Drug prohibition makes drugs much more valuable so the WoD is actually creating crime. Alos, corrupting law enforcement, and judges.

I feel the same way about drugs as I do alcohol, and that is we should punish people accordingly for their actions not for what they put in their bodies.

[DoctorDoom]

Disclaimer: The following are generic, untargeted points, addressing no individual poster nor individual post, nor are they in response to any individual poster or individual post. They are logical statements in response to the general anti-WoD mindset. However, some of the readers will take them personally.


Fact: the abuse of power is not an argument against the proper use of power. Citing corrupt DEA officers, cops, and judges as justification for condemning them all is a contemptible smear on those who do their jobs well.

Fact: the increase in drug abuse despite ongoing federal action is not an argument against continuing federal action. If crime increases in City X, that is not a reason to disband the City X police department.

Fact: when federal agencies make major drug busts, they eliminate that amount from the supply. The fact that they don't and can't intercept 100% of the shipments is not an argument for abandoning the effort. A reduction in supply is preferable to a 100% supply.

Fact: the majority of the hard drugs come from overseas. Therefore they are under the jurisdiction of the federal government when they reach our shores.

Fact: both imported and domestic drugs are transported across state lines. Interstate transportation of contraband is in the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Fact: individual states do not have the manpower or financial resources to deal with the trafficking in death within their borders. This is even more applicable at the local level.

Fact: the foes of the WoD have neither made defensible arguments against it nor offered rational alternatives.

Fact: declaring that a certain thing is no longer a crime does not alter its nature.

Fact: the claim that the WoD causes drug crime is on a par with saying that Wal*Mart security people cause shoplifting.

Fact: despite all the surrenderist activism, the WoD will continue to attempt to limit the influx of death-dealing drugs and to attempt to take the loathsome bastards who deal in them out of circulation.

Fact: the major impediment to effective enforcement is laws that shackle the LE personnel. Nothing else would be as effective as summary execution of the steet dealers and the sources as they are found. You get caught, you forfeit your life, period.

End of list.

[Rink]

The difference between the prohibition and the WoD is the fact that the prohibition dealt with one thing, 'alcohol' whereas the WoD is dealing with a plethora of drugs.

Some are too dangerous and can be considsidered a biohazard like meth is.

weed of course is too mild to compare, why its still on the list is beyond me, its less dangerous than alcohol, which is legal though restricted.

some things need to be clarified, and some need to be dropped but i have been asking those here since they feel the WoD is such a monumental failure, then what would they do to end it? How would they outline their approach and what would be their list of to do things to end the corruption of the WoD.

My question still stands, as it has on several threads here and has been completely unanswered.

What would Any of you do to end the WoD?????

How would you go about it?

How would you outline your plan of dismantling the WoD?

This is a valid question and I will continue to ask it.

[DoctorDoom]

Pot SHOULD be excepted, but again it must be said that it's a legislative matter. As long as pot laws are on the books, LE is obliged to enforce them.

And, I echo the question: what's the alternative that will keep the killer shit from destroying our nation?

[CatKozTX]

The war on drugs is working. Try living in a border city and you'll see the effects, first hand, every single day on the news. In the city where I live over $15 million has been seized by Customs officials at the border during 1995, 1996 and 1997 years (that includes just 4 ports of entry in my immediate area). I don't have time to find more current statistics for my specific area this morning, but I'm sure that number is currently much higher. If you were to include seizures by local law inforcement and DEA agents working citywide (not just at the border crossings), I'm sure the numbers would go up significantly.

According the DOJ website (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/texas.html) , here are the statistics statewide for Texas during 2002. (1 kg. is approx. 2.2 lbs.):

2002 Federal Drug Seizures
Cocaine: 5,327 kgs.
Heroin: 49.6 kgs.
Methamphetamine: 131.3 kgs.
Marijuana: 136,870.8 kgs.
Clandestine Laboratories: 555

Can you imagine what would happen if nothing was done about the 555 meth labs they were able to shut down?!?!?!? For everyone they do find and shut down, you can bet there is at least one they haven't found yet.

So, explain to me why the economic side of the war on drugs is more important than the benefits reaped from said war. Are we fighting the war for profit?

[HarvickFan29]

[ QUOTE ]
kitten said:
Harvic I couldn't have said it better myself

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Kitten! I appreciate that! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[CatKozTX]

No doubt there is corruption everywhere and I don't doubt that there are corrupt policemen out there selling seized drugs, but I think ending the war on drugs would solve absolutely nothing.

I do not see a rational alternative short of shutting down our borders and cleaning up from within. <---- works for me!

[HarvickFan29]

Cat, there is a difference in drug busts and drug use. In the last decade, drug use hasn't dropped — despite the doubling of federal spending on the drug war. And despite all the seizures, drugs are still as available as they have always been.

Ever notice how the DEA puts a street price tag on their busts? It makes it sound really impressive. But, all they are doing is running the price up in the black market, and causing more drug crime as a result.

I thought the definition of insanity was to keep repeating a failure???

[Warlady]

I believe the war on drugs is working too Cat.

[HarvickFan29]

Cat said: I do not see a rational alternative short of shutting down our borders and cleaning up from within. <---- works for me!


I'd be for a war on immigration. Now, that would really work for me! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I'd also be for selling of certain drugs the same way we sell alcohol, but have tighter restrictions and controls on it. Of course we have to have some sort of control but the billions spent over the last 30 years hasn't worked. LE, judges, and political leadership have admitted it. If we're gonna have government control, why not control drugs that way which would take it out of the hands of dealers, and gangs which would mean crime in that aspect would be reduced???

[HarvickFan29]

Warlady, if it is working, why are drugs still so available?

[HarvickFan29]

Rink, in reference to meth, you're talking about a manufactured drug. If we make stiffer drug manufacturing laws, and enforce them, that should help bust those labs. And if other drugs were legalized or decriminalized, that would also put those labs outta business.

In closing, LEOs and people with much more expertise than I don't have all the answers but continuing to throw money at something so we can say we are doing something just isn't the answer.

Please read my other posts in the thread.

[Warlady]

They aren't as available as they would be if we weren't confiscating tons of drugs at the boarder.

[HarvickFan29]

And the drug use? Is it also not as widespread?

Meth, and other drugs are being manufactured that do NOT come across the border.

[Warlady]

So what's your solution Harv? Just give up?

[HarvickFan29]

Doc in bold...

Fact: Citing corrupt DEA officers, cops, and judges as justification for condemning them all is a contemptible smear on those who do their jobs well.

No one here has smeared all cops but have stated that the WoD causes corrupt officials. That is a fact.

Fact: the increase in drug abuse despite ongoing federal action is not an argument against continuing federal action. If crime increases in City X, that is not a reason to disband the City X police department.

Drug enforcement should be a local issue but working with the feds. The idea that government should protect us from ourselves is not what we are about. We can't arrest ourselves out of this problem.


Fact: when federal agencies make major drug busts, they eliminate that amount from the supply.

Yes, they do but cause the increase of price which causes crime. It makes the product much more valuable.


The fact that they don't and can't intercept 100% of the shipments is not an argument for abandoning the effort. A reduction in supply is preferable to a 100% supply.

Again, supply and demand. Also, we could stop anything we wanted to from getting in this country just as we could immigration. But, we don't because it is profitable for agengies such as the DEA. Meanwhile, they claim to care by exaggerating busts and waging war on citizens.

Fact: the majority of the hard drugs come from overseas. Therefore they are under the jurisdiction of the federal government when they reach our shores.

What do you consider hard drugs? Most of the drugs in this country come from within this country.

Fact: both imported and domestic drugs are transported across state lines. Interstate transportation of contraband is in the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Yep, but working with local officials.

Fact: individual states do not have the manpower or financial resources to deal with the trafficking in death within their borders. This is even more applicable at the local level.

That was the same argument that was used for the feds getting into local issues like education. We see where that has led us. Government is the problem not the answer. It should be a last resort. I'd be for letting each state take care of their local issues. Just as they have decriminalized pot in most states, and some allow for a certain amount of growth of pot in home for individual consumption.

Fact: the foes of the WoD have neither made defensible arguments against it nor offered rational alternatives.

You keep stating these things as facts. They are merely opinion, and you havn't read posts here if you think there hasn't been any suggestions posted. BTW, just because people are against a failure, it doesn't add any credibility to your argument that we don't have ALL the answers for an alternative. Sometimes people know what not to do but not what to do in it's place.

Fact: declaring that a certain thing is no longer a crime does not alter its nature.

No one here has suggested that we not continue to control drugs. We control alcohol, and it is legal. We control legal (prescription) drugs as well. We simply stated we don't want to put anymore money in the WoD, a failure. That doesn't mean we are suggesting that everyone go stick a needle in their arm or smoke crack.

Fact: the claim that the WoD causes drug crime is on a par with saying that Wal*Mart security people cause shoplifting.

Of course it causes crime and I've stated how. You just have to read.

Fact: despite all the surrenderist activism, the WoD will continue to attempt to limit the influx of death-dealing drugs and to attempt to take the loathsome bastards who deal in them out of circulation.

The best way to take them out of business and all the crime and corruption that goes with it, is to legalize certain drugs with control.

Fact: the major impediment to effective enforcement is laws that shackle the LE personnel. Nothing else would be as effective as summary execution of the steet dealers and the sources as they are found. You get caught, you forfeit your life, period.

Locking up drug users, and dealers is as about as useless as locking up alccoholics. It doesn't make sense. We should lock up suppliers, and manufacturers.

[HarvickFan29]

[ QUOTE ]
Warlady said:
So what's your solution Harv? Just give up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Give up? What in the world ever gave you that idea?

I don't want to support failure. That is what I want to give up.

[CatKozTX]

[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
I'd also be for selling of certain drugs the same way we sell alcohol, but have tighter restrictions and controls on it. Of course we have to have some sort of control but the billions spent over the last 30 years hasn't worked. LE, judges, and political leadership have admitted it. If we're gonna have government control, why not control drugs that way which would take it out of the hands of dealers, and gangs which would mean crime in that aspect would be reduced???

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be fine with me in the case of marijuana, but I'm not sure about other currently illegal substances. I haven't given that much thought.

But, can you imagine how many of our tax dollars WOULDN'T have to be spent to pay farmers NOT to grow crops if we legalized marijuana?!?!?!?

[Wolfcounsel]

Fact: the major impediment to effective enforcement is laws that shackle the LE personnel. Nothing else would be as effective as summary execution of the steet dealers and the sources as they are found. You get caught, you forfeit your life, period. --posted by DoctorDoom


I also see nothing wrong with executing the users.

[Timberwolf]

Harv...hard drugs are opium, cocaine, heroin which derive from the opium poppy, the coca plant and the opium poppy (respectively)...those plants are grown in the tropics and therefore NOT in the US.

My solution to the WoD is to Agent Orange ANY coca or poppy field we find whether it be within our jurisdiction (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc) or not (Afghanistan, Bolivia, Equador, Mexico, etc). Add to that the summary execution of anyone found manufacturing Meth.

That would likely take care of 80+% of our drug problem.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

At the risk of continuing an off-topic thread, and at the risk of disagreeing with what seems to be a majority, I must agree with DoctorDoom here. This being the reasons why:
1. Because something is being done despite measures to stop it does not then automatically make it right once measures are discontinued to stop it.
2. Drugs are BAD, plain and simple. They are EXTREMELY dangerous to our young people, and are therefore highly sought after (we all know the adolescent syndrome ... tell a kid he can't open that door, as soon as your back is turned, he opens the door.) But we will NEVER be able to stop ALL of the kids ALL of the time ... you can't do that under any circumstances related to anything. We MUST do all we can to RESTRICT, LIMIT, and PREVENT drugs from getting into the hands of minors.
3. Crime seems to go hand-in-hand with the drug trade - True. However, if you remove the "illegal" status of drugs, this will NOT eliminate the criminal! They will find OTHER means to their ends.
4. Maybe the WoD DOES need to be overhauled, revamped, whatever, but eliminating it all together would be wrong, and would be viewed as giving up. As a parent, I APPRECIATE ALL THAT IS DONE to protect my family from the scourge of drugs.
5. If there is another way to get to the result which would reduce availability of illegal / dangerous substances, protect children and families from criminals who would take advantage of the weakest among us, punish those offenders who push drugs to children or around schools, parks, or children's play areas, well, then I would change my opinon.
6. The fact is, God KNEW Adam and EVE were going to sin, but He didn't say, "Okay, I know you're gonna eat the fruit I told you not to eat, so here I'll just give it to you." No, He said "DO NOT EAT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL." The prevalence, predilication for, and choice to sin DOES IN NO WAY NEGATE the fact that it IS STILL SIN.
7. The arguments for legalizing marijuana and cocaine, while seeming insightful, still promote the appearance of condoning DANGEROUS activities. And, lest anyone think I know not of what I speak, between the ages of 18 - 23 I was HOOKED on marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol. Was it easy to get? You bet! Would it not have appeared as "tempting" had it been legal? Nope, I was bent on personal destruction. But what caused me to stop? I GOT CAUGHT! Spent a night in jail, pleaded no contest before the Judge and lost my driver's license for a year. Praise God, I am NOT that person anymore. While this might not be the case for all, it was the RIGHT thing.
The "cure" for this problem is MORE parental involvement, intervention and discipline. It may sound silly telling kids "Just Say No," but if you start young enough, if you discuss things often enough, if you show the HARMFUL effects or share horror stories with them, if you bombard them (as does the media, movies, music, peer pressure, etc.) you have a GOOD chance of preventing some (not all) bad things from happening.
I cannot, in good conscience as a Christian, condone the legalization of harmful drugs. Hope I haven't made any enemies, because I respect each and everyone of you immensely. This is just a case where we will have to agree to disagree.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif

[Rink]

*quick reply* Lemme give you something in short.

Much of the hard drugs come from overseas, if this is the case then the majority of the problem with drugs saturating America comes from our pourous borders.

And here you have a legislative body that hears nothing when it comes to securing our borders.

Why is that?

I have been thinking about this for some time and i kinda wonder if this trickling of drugs into Our country and this continuation of a permanent WoD isnt just a deal fostered by the powers-that-be to make money from all sides of the issue.

All one needs is to close the damned borders in Mexico and Canada, that stops the majority of it, the secondary thing is to get unified mandatory sentencing for drug runners, and drug users with no appeals. that also helps cut things down.

Now for drugs in this country, thats another problem, when you live near national forests like i do weed is easy to grow because the choice to plant and grow weed is in our national forests, the same goes with meth making.

Much of the Klamath fish die-off was thought to be too much or too little water thus causing temperature changes but the unheard story was it was due to the dumping of chemicals by meth makers, which is a hidden thing going on in our forests.

we
#1. need to completely secure our borders

#2. we need to secure our National forestlands

#3. we need unified sentencing without the interferences of plea bargains that drag on for years, AS long as its proven without a shadow of a doubt they were trafficking in drugs.

#4. drugs should not be stored at police stations, but secure federal facilities only. (makes it harder for the cops to dip their fingers into the pie so to speak). and since the feds dont walk the beat they would be less inclined to deal in the stuff though the temptation is still there.

I feel this drug war has been allowed to go on indefinitely because the LEO benefit greatly from confiscated peoperty, the government benefits from the taxes off the sale of confiscated property, and much of the money and proceeds are held in the hands of the government.

why close up the borders when they profit all around from the drug war?

with the illegals bringing in cheap labor and easy votes for the dems, and drugs coming across the border by hook or crook why close the borders?

it is a profitable business.

Yes what I'm saying is pure conjecture, but then again who is to say this isnt the case?

Think about it for a while.
The American people have been screaming loud and long for YEARS to have our borders secure and absolutely nothing has been done........ why?

because its profitable, thats why.

on all counts.

[Warlady]

Homeschool, I have basically said the same thing. On deaf ears unfortunately.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Rink, I totally agree with #1, #2, &amp; #3. I just don't believe drugs should be legalized. There HAS to be a better way to handle this, I'm sure, as to what that would be I am hard pressed to come up with an answer.

As for the drugs stored at the police departments, etc., I don't understand why they just don't take pictures of the stuff as evidence and just burn it immediately. I know down here where I am there have been several "drug" houses raided and the stuff put in large burn piles. (Of course it may have just been the paraphernalia and not necessarily the drugs, but I thought that's what it said in the newspaper.)

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif

[Rink]

Pictures would be construed as circumstantial evidence if I am correct.

That is why they need to store the stuff, but i think they need to store it away from purloining police officers in a place thats away from the area where it was got.

Making it a little harder to dispense with it when its in federal hands.

I most certainly would hope it would be anyhow.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Rink,
I agree with you there. Seems to me though, if the stuff was photographed and they called in a Notary or something to sign a legal document verifying the veracity of the claim that the stuff photographed was indeed the stuff seized, or something similar, that should suffice. But of course, once again (one of my many NON-talents, LOL) I am NOT an attorney, attorney general, nor in law enforcement. My opinion comes from a strictly pragmatic stance -- get rid of the stuff as quickly as possible so it can cause no further harm. But I guess we are just too way past that now (a la the O.J. Simpson trial). Sad, very sad.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif

[Rink]

Dem lawyers and courts can be searingly picky to the max with the nitpickings of the law.

Thats why pics and notarized anything wont work, having the evidence in front of their face is proof they need, whereas if they had only pics and notarized notes, who is to say the cops didnt try to frame thus-and-such and voila the perp gets out on the street on a technicality.

hard enough to convict the criminals as it is with the judges throwing entire cases out on technicalities.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Doc in bold...

[/ QUOTE ]
My response to everything that follows: " "

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Homeschool, I have basically said the same thing. On deaf ears unfortunately.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sister WL, when the opposing side uses arguments similar to, "Look at how our cities are infested with drugs and tell me the WoD is working," it's hopeless. There is no rational basis on which to make such a statement, since there is no "control group" with which to compare it. Logic dictates that ending the WoD will drastically increase drug use and abuse, because the market will remain and the major impediment to it will be removed.

There's a bumper sticker that says, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance!" A parallel concept is, "If you think drug abuse is bad with the WoD, try doing without it."

[Rink]

and once when I was driving down 4th avenue in vancouver WA I saw a man lying on the sidewalk, apparently he overdosed, ambulances were just reaching there, while people looked on.

another time i went to the MacD to the ladies room and found drug paraphenalia in there.

[DoctorDoom]

Generic Quick Reply...

The alleged failure of the WoD has become a meaningless mantra, a modern-day equivalent of the Big Lie. Where is the comparison between what drug use is now and what it would be WITHOUT the WoD? Answer: it doesn't exist, because there is no control group to which it can be compared.

The essence of scientific research on the effectiveness of a treatment is to compare a group that is receiving the treatment to a control group that is receiving nothing or a placebo. Without that basis for comparison, claims of effectiveness or ineffectiveness are so much unsupported rhetoric.

If the DEA is allegedly lying about the effectiveness of the WoD, then its critics are obliged to provide evidence based on a control group in the same social and cultural environment, and with the same demographics, but that has not been affected by the WoD. Lots of luck finding one.

When someone claims that the WoD has been a failure, it's pure opinion without a shred of supporting evidence. There is NOTHING that can be pointed to as evidence that such and such would have happened without the WoD.

The arguments against the WoD are heavy on rhetoric and opinion, but lacking in substance, and their scientific validity is nil.

[Warlady]

I agree with you Doc. I don't care what the government says. Doc is 100% correct. And you will never convince me that legalizing drugs or just giving up is the right thing to do.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Doc by the dea's own websight which Cat put the link to they said this. So after reading this how can one come to possibly think that their war is working??

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say that it ISN'T? Again the question must be asked: to what are you comparing the WoD that you can claim that it is not working? How do you KNOW that it is not working if you have never seen anything else?

The DEA's budget is under $2 billion. How does that compare with the budgets of the scum who are making, importing, distributing and dealing the shit? A: it's a pittance. Organized crime is not called "organized" for nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
The DEA employed 4,020 officers with the authority to make arrests and carry firearms as of June 2002.

[/ QUOTE ]
Enforcement (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm)

4020 officers for the entire country. Wow golly gosh gee whiz! The NYPD has 38,000 uniformed officers. What is 4020 compared to the hundreds of thousands of scumbags involved in drug trafficking in the USofA? That's like sending one battalion to fight an entire army.

Another fact: the DEA must do things by the book. The bad guys don't because by definition criminals don't obey laws. Who has the advantage?

If the WoD is not as effective as it could be, it's because weenies have shackled it.

IAC, federal drug enforcement seldom gets involved in the penny ante crap. From the same DoJ site:

[ QUOTE ]
Federal, State, and local agencies share responsibility for enforcing the Nation's drug laws, although most arrests are made by State and local authorities. In 2002 the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) estimated that there were 1,538,800 State and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ergo, the likelihood of DEA agents banging on the door of a pothead is nil.

[Rink]

Actually they have with people in oregon WITH the medical marijuana card, the LEO arrested them for growing some weed plants even though they have the medical card that allows them to do so.

So much for limited legalization, right?

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
In 2000, the National Drug Control budget exceeds $18 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the bulk of it is spent in education, treatment and prevention. Less then $2 billion is spent on enforcement. Do the dickheads tell you that?

[ QUOTE ]
How much does the drug war cost American taxpayers?

[/ QUOTE ]
I note that the assholes don't address how much drug use and abuse are costing American taxpayers and the economy. But then these whining ideologues are averse to presenting the whole truth because it blows their pathetic, one-sided "arguments" out of the water.

[DoctorDoom]

The "marijuana" used for medicinal purposes is an extract called THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) aka dronabinol. The Unimed Pharmaceuticals trade name is Marinol, available since 1985. It's in capsule form. It isn't smoked, and it has none of the deleterious side effects of smoking pot.

Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.
-- "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine, 1999

[Rink]

from what I understood they also could grow their own for their own personal use ONLY.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You know, there are murders every day all over the place -- people get killed in this country all the time -- so we make murder legal because a whole lot of BAD PEOPLE are doing it??? NO!!!

It makes no sense to completely eliminate the WoD -- change it, modify it's modus operadi, sure -- but completely legalize drugs, no way no how. All those things mentioned -- drug paraphernalia in the fast food restaurant, addict unconscious on the street, druggies sleeping in children's parks, etc. -- do you HONESTLY believe if drugs were legalized you wouldn't then find the same thing??? Of course not, people who chose bad behavior won't suddenly have 'better' behavior because their drug of choice is legal. Just look in my ditch in front of my house every Saturday and Sunday morning after the drunks are out driving and pitching their beer/wine/whiskey bottles in. You can see drunks in the parks, and bottles/containers all over public places.

I will agree that the $$ needs to go to the RIGHT places -- WAY MORE border security, stronger enforcement for those selling to kids or near schools, dealers &amp; pushers, allowances for REAL medical reasons (prescription only), etc. But illegal dangerous drugs should NEVER be legalized, IMHO.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif

[Incident_command]

[ QUOTE ]
Warlady said:
I agree with you Doc. I don't care what the government says. Doc is 100% correct. And you will never convince me that legalizing drugs or just giving up is the right thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will only make things worse to legalize drugs IMO.
This is just one examlple.
The city I work for has a budget of 6 million for its fire department alone. This is for a city with a population of 50,000 that is mostly run down urban eyesoars. We run 10,000 calls a year and more than 50% are drug and alcohol related.
Call after call is OD by accident or intention. Siezures from prolonged use. Altered mental status from drug use. Heart attacks from crack or cocaine.Baker act this guy baker act that guy.Drug related shooting, stabbings, assualts, setting their house on fire due to their mental status, and on and on.
If it were cheaper and legal I can't see how it would help things out.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not true, I do not have a site for this because I was talking with a nurse that works at my school...

[/ QUOTE ]
And it is not true because of what a school nurse told you? How wonderful it is that the statement of one nurse contravenes the extensive research of the Institute of Medicine (http://www.iom.edu/). She must certainly be in line for the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

[ QUOTE ]
... she has been in the medical field for over 30 years...

[/ QUOTE ]
And no doubt the IoM is staffed by high school dropouts who work there because they flunked the "Do you want fres with that?" test at MickeyD's.

[ QUOTE ]
... and had said it is highly used to smoke ebcause many cancer patients can not hold down the marinol and or it is not potent enough for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
And again we are supposed to take the word of a handful of unidentified doctors and nurses over the body of objective research in Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=5608).

[ QUOTE ]
They need to be able to eat and often they don't feel like they can't or just can't eat depending on where the cancer is, so that is often the only they can take it and it is often THE ONLY THING THAT HELPS THEM and doesn't even always help. I have had several doctors and nurses tell me that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anecdotal evidence is not at all sufficient. Let them publish their information in the professional journals such as the NEJM and subject it to peer review. If it stands up to that, it will be given credibility.

[ QUOTE ]
As for pain there are many people out there who can not take pills at all because they can not swallow them or they just can't hold them down so then again marinol wont work for them so they have no other choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto the above comments. Their claims are not sufficient for establishing national policy.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is working doc.. then tell me please why are the parks i used to take my kids to 10, 20 years ago now more dangerous than ever ?... Yadayada ... it aint workin and the money could be well spent in other ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have this little problem that I've had since I was young. I'm of a scientific bent. I don't accept personal statements, feelings and opinions as valid, scientifically-sound proof. Ergo, when I read your shopping list of symptoms of a drug problem (the reality of which no one is denying), I do not consider it to be evidence that the WoD is not working, because there is no data against which to compare it. The statement that such and such problems exist in no way serves as evidence that without the WoD, the problems would be anything but far worse.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me why you think that we can stop this crap from coming in and making it unprofitable when we can't even secure our borders from illegal immigrants??

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell me why you equate the two. This is not comparing apples and oranges, but apples and tennis balls. Drugs don't pack meager lunches and swarm across the US border on their own. They are chemicals, lifeless, inanimate substances that will stay in one place forever unless someone transports them. The WoD is against the worthless, hell-bound pieces of shit that manufacture them, transport them, distribute them and sell them, not caring one ****ing iota how many lives they ruin.

How the hell does that compare to Jose and Conchita jumping the border?

[ QUOTE ]
If we can beat and win and stop all these drugs from coming in that we have been trying since the 70's when the wod was first brought into action why haven't we??

[/ QUOTE ]
Again you are making subjective observations without a shred of substantiating evidence that ending the WoD would do anything but drastically exacerbate the problem. Show me the analyses of where the US would be now if the WoD had not existed for three decades.

I don't give a shit if the streets are covered a foot deep with used needles. My point, which is being totally ignored by the "ban the WoD" crowd, is that there is no evidence whatsoever that they would not be ten feet deep without the WoD.

The opposition to the WoD is NOT scientific.

[ QUOTE ]
why is it on the increase??

[/ QUOTE ]
Because spineless, gutless, braindead liberal/libertarian politicians and activists have made it almost impossible to wage an effective campaign against drugs. Their "solution" is to throw up our hands and delude ourselves that if we bury our heads in the sand, the problem will go away.

If we open the floodgates to evil, evil WILL come through them. That's not guesswork. That's history.

[ QUOTE ]
I have put out here numerous times the effects of taxpayers...

[/ QUOTE ]
And I have posted the effects of the drug abuse problem on taxpayers. That data has been rejected or ignored because if doesn't fit the "evil WoD" paradigm.

[ QUOTE ]
... and they have come from the same beauracacy IE government that the stats that you come up with???

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doc, the link you put out here is from the government itself. Now I am sure they wouldn't lie now would they/

[/ QUOTE ]
You have stated that my statistical data is unbelievable because the government lies, but you quote the SAME government agencies when their statistical data allegedly supports your position. There's a common H-word for that.

[Rink]

well I know some bout herbs and marijuana has been classified a medicinal herb since the Middle ages and have been used for a variety of ailments for that amount of time and I have yet to see anyone die from the use of weed.

But then again the government says its bad so we MUST stamp it out!

Why is it bad? because it cannot be replicated by sinthetic medicines vis-a-vis the pharmaceutical companies cannot make money off of natural products so they demonized something that was and still is effective medicinally, even though the 60's produced a plethora of weed-heads, it is still and always have been classified a medicinal herb.

Why IT cannot be re-classified a medicinal is apparently clear, the powers-that-be cannot make money off of patents from natural substances such as Marijuana, they MUST sunthesize it in order to make a gob of money from it, thats the way things work in today's medicines.

that is why even though its mainly harmless unto itself and if smoked too much will produce memory challened clueless dorks.

Properly used it is an effective medicine in its own right, seeds and more.

This is why Marijuana is STILL on the eeevil list of hateful eeevil demonic drugs.

One reason why Opium is not is because they managed to synthesise it.

One exception to the rule is foxglove, (digitalis) it cannot be replicated, but because it is such a specific herb and is designated for a very specific purpose it is not semonized.

Opium in its own right is still bad, in fact buying red opium seeds for a garden is illegal in many states.

dont take much to start an opium farm and doesnt take much to harvest it either.

[Rink]

NP Mom, I know some of the synthetic drugs on the market and even the over-the-counter drugs can be far worse than the natural Marijuana.

synthetics never work WITH the system, they yard it around, wereas the natural herbal style medicines if done right works naturally with the system, may take more time but in the long run its a lot more healthier than the unnatural synthetic style drugs that are out there on the market.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Drugs Not Seized - If that much illegal dope is being seized, how much is getting through? No statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]
"DOH!"
-- Homer Simpson

We have no statistics on how much dope that we don't know about is getting through. Jeez! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Tell you what: I'll provide you with those statistics when you provide me with information on how many wild animals that we don't know about die of rabies every day.

[ QUOTE ]
Price of the War - Since spending $1.5 billion in 1985, the federal budget devoted to drug-fighting has increased to over $17.7 billion in FY 2000. (Source: ONDCP)

I thought you said the dea budget was under 2 billion... then how is it that it has increased over 17.7 billion?? seems quite a difference....

[/ QUOTE ]
Since you obviously ignored the response the first time it was addressed, I'll repeat it here so that it can be ignored again.

[ QUOTE ]
Costs to the Taxpayer

The claim that money allegedly saved from giving up on the drug problem could be better spent on education and social problems is readily disputed. When compared to the amount of funding that is spent on other national priorities, federal drug control spending is minimal. For example, in 2002, the amount of money spent by the federal government on drug control was less than $19 billion in its entirety. And unlike critics of American drug policy would have you believe,

<font size="5" color="red">all of those funds did not go to enforcement policy only.</font>

Those funds were used for treatment, education and prevention, as well as enforcement.

<font size="5" color="red">Within that budget, the amount of money Congress appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration was roughly $1.6 billion,</font>

a sum that the Defense Department runs through about every day-and-a-half or two days.

In FY 2002, the federal drug budget is $18.8 billion. One-third of that budget is invested in demand reduction: prevention and treatment efforts. This fiscal year, we have budgeted more than $3 billion for drug abuse treatment, a 27% increase over 1999.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/fig19.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Fact 5: Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/05so.htm)

See the green block labelled "Drug Control"? That represents the money spent on drug control, including the DEA budget. See the little red slice labelled "DEA Budget"? That represents the DEA budget. Only in the New MMM Math is $1.6 billion in 2002 equal to "over $17.7 billion in FY 2000."

[Wyatt_Junker]

Perhaps all Marta needed was to get high on the Tesh. Guy has a kind of animal magnetism heretofore unseen, ever since Elvis ate his last bacon sammich. Tesh is a drug.

My advice? Get high on life, people. Please, already.

http://www.seeing-stars.com/Images/People/JohnTesh.JPG

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Kitten you are falling on deaf ears. Unlesss you can find facts by reliable sources it don't matter. sheesh... (sarcasm).

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, excu-u-use me for expecting that people who are advocating abolishing federal anti-drug programs and establishing a national policy of abject surrender to crime should be able to provide something more gawddamned substantial than anecdotal evidence and opinions to support their frivolous notions.

[ QUOTE ]
But you have done reports on this before i think. Find something on this and post it if you can. I will look later. I know there is a ton of info out there about this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see an obsession here with equating the WoD with harassing poor, innocent, saintly Joe Weedblower, and totally ignoring the horrendous damage caused by the deadly drugs. But of course touchy-feely arguments aren't buttressed by the statistics of the millions of dead people whose lives were wasted and eventually destroyed over the years by the hard shit that the surrenderists prefer not to address.

Are all those needles on the sidewalks used for injecting marijuana? Are the human dregs that haunt the crack houses there to toke joints? Are the hundreds of thousands of drug-related ER cases the result of smoking pot?

Logic ain't the strong suit of the champions of legalized chemical death.

[ QUOTE ]
But hey the indians and men before us have used it for medicinal purposes but i reckon they were just hicks and so primitive that they didn't know any better.

[/ QUOTE ]
And no doubt "the indians and men before us have used" cocaine, crack, heroin, opium, and all those other harmless drugs "for medicinal purposes." Maybe we should follow their other medical practices and use leeches and blood-letting to treat disease. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Never mind that in the 30's the drugs marijuana and cocaine were legal. Prohibition works great doesn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the drug cheerleaders would READ before reacting, they would note that I have stated several times that pot should be legalized and dealt with like alcohol. I have also stated correctly that the pot issue is legislative, and that the law enforcement personnel must enforce the law (WOW! What a concept!).

All the carping about the WoD will not change that fact. If you want legal pot, get your federal and state legislators to legalize it. Until then, stop crying about people being busted for selling and using it, knowing full well the consequences for doing so. If they know the law and choose to break it, screw the morons. Let them take the fall.

As for cocaine, that's really healthy stuff, eh? Oh, hell, yes! Let's sell the shit in one-pound boxes right next to the confectionary sugar.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
My advice? Get high on life, people. Please, already.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am.

[abestreet]

Whew!!! I just opened this thread and skimmed over all the posts. Skimming took me half an hour. Good lord, the posts are all over the place from Rush's problems to making drugs legal and to drug trafficing.


I guess I'm leading towards Suzies's opinion of Rush. I'm a casual listner of Rush's, in other words when I'm in the car I listen. I don't go out of my way to listen when indoors or at work. I like his show and agree with many of his ideas and opinions. I realize how he could have become addicted and don't feel that his addiction is the same as someone who begins with weed and moves on up the chain to harder drugs. However, and as I understand it, Rush may have gone checked himself into rehab clinics from time to time. He knew he had a problem. Given his position I think he would have saved himself a lot of grief if he had just come forward and admitted his addiction. It's the cover up that hurt him. Also, I haven't followed the case that closely, but how could he be charged with a crime if the drugs were being obtained legally. My guess is that he did obtain the drugs illegally. Regardless, he should have known that his addiction would become public. I just hope when his day in court comes he doesn't use a lot of legal double talk to try and play down his addiction and his subsequent actions. I hope he's upfront and honest and takes his lumps without whinning.

As for making some drugs legal I don't agree. Based on only my observations I just don't see how drugs benefit anyone in the long run. The reduction in crime, IMO, is a weak argument.

As far as the war on drugs goes, I don't have high hopes. Back in the mid 90's, I along with the Marine unit I was stationed with were part of a JTF (Joint Task Force) mission along the Arizona and Mexico boarder. The Marines would stake out an area along the border and while concealed call in any illegal immigrants we saw coming across the border as well as people we believed were carrying illegal drugs. Believe it or not the border is indicated by a broken down fence that cant be more than 3 or 4 feet high. Hardly a deterrent to those seeking to come into the U.S.. What's worse is that the indian reservation this land sat on extended from the U.S. into Mexico. There was an open road that connected the two countries. There was no border patrol because the native indians were allowed unrestricted access on the reservation, which as I stated existed in both the U.S. and Mexico. We were able to call in a few involved in drug trafficing that the local sheriff and DEA would then arrest. This isn't a high tech matter. Illegal aliens would carry bales of weed, they looked like hay, and walk down the dried up river beds at night. While we caught a few lord knows how many got through. The area was to big to patrol. Don't even bring up illegal aliens. They came through in droves. They would be escorted back and try again in a day or so. As U.S. military we couldn't arrest or detain them only call in the authorities. All I can say about border control back in the the 90's, IMO, is that it was one be CF. Our borders are, or at least were, way to unprotected. Perhaps things have changed. I doubt it.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
First off you seem to be thinking that i said treatments worked. I never said that,, we know that it only helps those that want the help.

[/ QUOTE ]
And most of them don't. However, the country is full of equally stupid people who would take up the habits if drugs became legal, and they also wouldn't want the help, either. And the nation would suffer even more because of them. But, who gives a shit, hey?

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains the budget is under the control of the dea correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's not correct. The DEA is part of the DoJ. It controls only what it does with its own budget.

Here are the 2003 drug-related budgets in millions for some of the fedgov depts.<pre>
Dept. of Defense 848.9
Education (Safe &amp; Drug-Free Schools) 644.3
Health and Human Services:
Substance Abuse &amp; Mental Health
Services Administration 2,371.0
National Institute on Drug Abuse 948.5
Dept. of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration 1,698.5
Interagency Crime &amp; Drug Enforcement 362.1
Immigration &amp; Naturalization Service 328.5
Office of Justice Programs 240.2
Office of National Drug Control Policy 523.1
Dept. of State 883.2
Transportation (U.S. Coast Guard) 629.2
Treasury
Customs Service 1,004.4
Interagency Crime &amp; Drug Enforcement 107.6</pre> RESTRUCTURING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL BUDGET (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03budget/restructuring.pdf) (PDF)

The DEA controls only its own. You're reading too much fiction.

[ QUOTE ]
...they deem out what they want budgeted for the drug control v.s. drug enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]
As seen above, your statement is grossly in error.

[ QUOTE ]
Matters not... none of the programs are working?? you have failed to show me a DECREASE IN USAGE.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are undermining your own argument. A decrease from what to what? Show me the statistics for what drug use would be now WITHOUT the WoD vs what it is now WITH the Wod. Until you can do so, your argument that the WoD is not working is pure, unsupported conjecture.

[ QUOTE ]
The war on drugs is not only the battle fought for keeping it away from this nation,, it is both abroad and domestically. IT HAS NOT WORKED.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure, unsupported conjecture. You have no basis for comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
If it had then many years ago we would have made such a huge dent in it that we should by all common sense not need to be funding it more and more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Provide the numbers to show that the "huge dent" has NOT been made compared to what the situation would be without the WoD. You insist on making totally meaningless arguments that have no factual basis.

[ QUOTE ]
HENCE we are throwing money into programs that do not work. Here or abroad.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure, unsupported conjecture. You have no basis for comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
Since we do not know how much is getting through exactly we do know it is still coming in and in even more greater amounts than when we started this endless non winable war.

[/ QUOTE ]
And your solution is to surrender and say, "**** it! Let the shit destroy America."

[ QUOTE ]
As long as there is demand there will be supply.

[/ QUOTE ]
And does it get through that wall of obtuseness that only because of the WoD is the demand greater than the supply, ergo the prices and the associated violence. Your "solution", that we should simply open the doors to unlimited supply, and allow millions more Americans to kill themselves by chemical suicide, is frankly obscene and beneath contempt.

[ QUOTE ]
All we are doing is creating more violence... blahblahblah.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you think that ending the WoD will cure that? Such naivete is breathtaking. Do you also wait by the fireplace on Christmas Eve for Santa Claus?

[ QUOTE ]
More police on the streets is not going to curtail it, we have had more police added and yet our cities and now even rural areas, burbs, etc all are seeing an increase in crimes being commited for that creep to buy more drugs.... If it has been working then in what from 1975 to 2004 why are we not seeing results??? why are we seeing still more of an increase ?? with all that we have done in the past 30 years or so by all common sense it should be eradicated by now don't ya think? most do. So most and even conservatives are realizing that we are doing something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure, unsupported conjecture. You have no basis for comparison.

You can repeat the unsupported, undocumented bullshit 10,000 times and it will still be bullshit.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
NO one has advocated not fighting drug usage.. all that has been said is what we are doing now is not working!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure, unsupported conjecture. You have no basis for comparison.

And your brilliant, earthshaking alternative is? No matter what the hell you suggest, there will be legions of assholes to attack it. Their only goal is absolute legalization of all drugs and unfettered access to them. They want to sell heroin to your kids. Anything short of that is unacceptable.

The only people who will gain from the fatuous notion of ending the WoD are the suppliers. As anyone who hasn't been in a coma for half a century is well aware, the suppliers are the scumbags of organized crime. That won't change, and the violence associated with drug abuse will skyrocket, because the market will greatly expand, prompting even more territorial and control conflicts.

But, who cares? It'll save a few billion dollars that can be spent on buying votes and it will make the terminally clueless feel good.

IAC, it's all academic, because the WoD will continue. We all know that

The REAL solution is summary execution of every piece of shit involved in trafficking, from the street pusher to the crooked cops, judges, military personnel, and Mafia dons, and staking their ****ing heads on the nearest spiked fence until they rot.

When drug trafficking becomes a fast exit to the grave for those bastards, the supply will evaporate. To hell with their Constitutional rights. To hell with due process. If they're caught, kill them.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the decline that we should be seeing? you have not addressed that issue...

[/ QUOTE ]
How many different ways can one say the same thing before it finally sinks in?

What would the drug crime rate be absent the WoD? Answer that simple question. Certainly you must have authoritative inside knowledge of that alternate universe, inasmuch as you are obsessed with proving that the WoD is not working. Show us the charts and graphs displaying the drug crime rate for the last thirty years WITH and WITHOUT the WoD.

All I want is documentation to prove that the WoD has not been effective based on what the crime rate would be without it. That's not too much to ask, right?


Anti-WoD zealots still have not even attempted to offer an effective alternate solution. They spout mealy-mouthed platitudes and starry-eyed rhetoric while the vermin are killing Americans. IMO, they just want to sit in a corner and let the bastards poison the people with their vile chemicals.

I'm sorry, but that defeatist, nihilistic bullshit just won't do. The WoD is not perfect, but it's vastly better than the spineless, gutless surrender that the appeasers of crime are advocating.

Thankfully, their arguments will have no effect on the battle against drug crime, and we will not have to discover for ourselves how bad it can get.

[ QUOTE ]
I can get as snotty as you can sir.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's unlikely. You're too much of a lady.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
all i can say is get off the stats and open your eyes and look around that shows the problem is getting worse and not better.

[/ QUOTE ]
And just how the hell can you demonstrate that it is not working EXCEPT by stats? Is science to be thrown out the window here because emotion and opinion must hold sway?

You claim it's not working. PROVE IT, not by what you see, not by what you feel, not by what you think, but by cold, hard, irrefutable facts. SHOW US what the situation would be WITHOUT the WoD. You "shitcan the WoD" zealots are uniformly refusing to provide the side by side comparison of the drug situation with and without the WoD, and without those comparisons, your claims about the failure of the WoD are just ass-smoke.

[ QUOTE ]
about 15 years ago, people were smoking marijuana but crack houses were almost unheard of, I never even saw a drug needle on the ground, nor did I see any crackheads around, and that was grwoing up near the worst part of portland, and now you go even to the suburbs or anywhere and every other freakin house is a crackhouse and needles are all over the placeeeeee...

[/ QUOTE ]
And what would you do about it, since you want to terminate the only impediment to it? If you get your way and the WoD ends, then STFU when those problems suddenly become far worse.

[ QUOTE ]
stop with the stats...

[/ QUOTE ]
Do the facts bore you or confuse you, or are they just impossible to refute and therefore must be squelched? I base my decisions and judgments on facts, not on gut feelings, emotions, and opinions. I realize that my approach is anathema to the touchy-feely crowd, but that's the way it is.

[ QUOTE ]
...and listen to the news...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm certain that Rather, Brokaw and Jennings, those veritable fountainheads of objective journalism, will provide me with totally unbiased coverage of the issue (when they finally can't bear to do one more story about those poor, abused, naked Iraqi murderers).

[ QUOTE ]
Besides you can stop the drugs crossing the borders all day long, but will that help not really since from what goes on at least where I live marijuana (which is not deadly, you can not OD on it nor has anyne dies FROM SMKING IT) or the drugs that are HOMEMADE such as meth.

[/ QUOTE ]
So we should just let in the tons of cocaine and heroin and other imported narcotics because assholes can grow pot and make meth at home? Wow! I'm dazzled by the logic! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the people who Doctor hop to get perscriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant. The issue is illegal, death-dealing narcotics, not legal drugs.

[ QUOTE ]
It is common sense you can see that it is not working

[/ QUOTE ]
I see nothing of the sort. In fact, all that I DO see is an endless flow of unproven opinion, anecdotal evidence, and feelings from the "ban the WoD" fanatics.

BTW, I do hope that if your doctor needs to prescribe a medicine for you, he relies on something more substantial than his "common sense".

[Wolfcounsel]

"The REAL solution is summary execution of every piece of shit involved in trafficking, from the street pusher to the crooked cops, judges, military personnel, and Mafia dons, and staking their ****ing heads on the nearest spiked fence until they rot.

When drug trafficking becomes a fast exit to the grave for those bastards, the supply will evaporate. To hell with their Constitutional rights. To hell with due process. If they're caught, kill them." --DoctorDoom

Tack a note with a rusty knife on their buttholes, with these words, or some like it, "WHO WANTS TO BE THE NEXT BAD ASS DRUG DEALER TO TAKE THIS ASSHOLE'S PLACE?"

If he has not been decapitated, put clown make-up on his face. And stencil his name on his forehead.

[abestreet]

Back to Topic.


Rush has been married 3 times and all 3 have ended in divorce. Seems to me that the main thing all 3 marriages have in common is Rush. If a person wants to bet that his 4th marriage will last I'll take that bet. The odds are so in may favor. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[CatKozTX]

I wonder if he'll even try marriage again. If he does, I bet it will be a long long time from now.

[DoctorDoom]

Continuing the argument will solve nothing. We both know that the War on Drugs in some incarnation will continue because it is absolutely vital to preventing total chaos. The fact that the drug situation is grievous only proves that the efforts at dealing with it are severely hampered, and that they are inadequate to address the matter effectively.

4000 agents for the entire country is pathetic in comparison to hundreds of thousands of soulless, inhuman scum who haven't a trace of compassion for the lives of their "customers", the families and the country. Fretting endlessly about freedom and constitutional rights while the enemy is rotting the country from within is no longer acceptable.

[ QUOTE ]
I see a huge decline everywhere and i see more crime than ever before... even in the last 20 years. ONe could walk the streets at night,, go to parks,, never had to worry about some junkie wanting to knife you for a few bucks for drugs. The wod is or was supposed to help curtail this crap and so far it has not. Deaths on innocents from drive by shootings that some damn gang banger mis judged and got wrong... too many innocent lives are being lost today since when i was a kid. I see the changes, the corruption... that is all i need to know that something aint right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you say that this is a clear violation of your rights as an American citizen? I most certainly would. And who is responsible for this gross infringement on your rights? Is it the government, or is it the hell-bound bastards who are involved in this state of siege?

And would it end with the demise of the WoD, or would it escalate exponentially once the only restraining force is removed? IMO, cities would become war zones, and the only solution would be martial law.

The city conditions you cite are NOT the result of the WoD "failing" but of its being prevented from dealing with the matter properly and effectively, combined with America's general abandonment of morality and decency. The enemies are immune to reason and persuasion. They must be exterminated with no more consideration than one would give to cockroaches.

Until the authorities are free to erase the scum from the planet, the consequences of drug abuse will continue to mount. If someone is going to be given free rein, let it be the good guys.

And with that, I'm going to end this dialog, not wishing to create friction and disunity amongst conservatives. That would play into the liberals' hands, n'est-ce pas?

God bless!

[DoctorDoom]

Young lady, before continuing, proofread and punctuate. It is difficult to decipher unpunctuated, run-on sentences. The essence of communication is verbal precision.

[ QUOTE ]
the WoD is never going to solve or help the problem because the more stricter they are getting about weed and pure cocain which are natural and not that damaging, people are getting sneakier by creating their own drugs and using chemicals which are not only seriously hurting them, which I could careless about, i dont care what people do to themselves that is their business, but now since they can't have those drugs they are making meth which does not only hurt them but everyone who lives in that area with a few houses to a few blocks from them.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is quite frankly unreadable.

[CaliGirl]

[ QUOTE ]
abestreet said:
Back to Topic.


Rush has been married 3 times and all 3 have ended in divorce. Seems to me that the main thing all 3 marriages have in common is Rush. If a person wants to bet that his 4th marriage will last I'll take that bet. The odds are so in may favor. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally someone who went back to the TOPIC as I did pages ago.

Timeline of topic:

[ QUOTE ]
12 Jan 1951 Rush Limbaugh born, Cape Girardeau. Weight: MO, 7 pounds 6 ounces.

24 Sep 1977 Marries Roxy Maxine McNeely, sales secretary at radio station WHB in Kansas City, at the Centenary United Methodist Church in Cape Girardeau. The marriage lasts about eighteen months.
Mar 1980 Roxy McNeely files for divorce, citing "incompatibility".
10 Jul 1980 Divorces Roxy McNeely.

1983 Marries Michelle Sixta, a Kansas City Royals stadium usherette, at the Stadium Club.
Dec 1988 Second wife leaves him, Christmas weekend.

27 May 1994 Marries third wife Marta Fitzgerald, a 35-year-old aerobics instructor he met on Compuserve. The two are married in Justice Clarence Thomas' house, with the ceremony officiated by Thomas himself. Also in attendence were William Bennett, James Carville and Mary Matalin.

[/ QUOTE ]

More (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/rush-limbaugh/)

[Wolfcounsel]

We need a war on the massacre of the English language.









I'm just kidding again. Don't hit me, Kitten!

[DoctorDoom]

The Unholywood libs should love him. They change mates like most people change socks. The best description I've ever seen of Hollyweird marriage is serial monogamy.

[CaliGirl]

[ QUOTE ]
kitten said:
the WoD is never going to solve or help the problem because the more stricter they are getting about weed and pure cocain which are natural and not that damaging, people are getting sneakier by creating their own drugs and using chemicals which are not only seriously hurting them, which I could careless about, i dont care what people do to themselves that is their business, but now since they can't have those drugs they are making meth which does not only hurt them but everyone who lives in that area with a few houses to a few blocks from them. Like I said look around the stricter they get with marijuana and cocaine the more we are seeing meth and harder drugs that affect people who live near these crackheads. Stats do not bother me what bothers me is when you can look around and see that this is making the situation worse but no instead people wanna be blind little sheep and go with what the government says

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon127.gif

Looking up profile.......you are a full time mother, and you wrote the above? God help us all! Please DO spell check!

[CaliGirl]

[ QUOTE ]
DoctorDoom said:
Young lady, before continuing, proofread and punctuate. It is difficult to decipher unpunctuated, run-on sentences. The essence of communication is verbal precision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops! Spoke to soon....should have read more...sorry Doc!

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just kidding again. Don't hit me, Kitten!

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't. the quoted segment IS all but unreadable.

[ QUOTE ]
the WoD is never going to solve or help the problem because the more stricter they are getting about weed and pure cocain which are natural and not that damaging, people are getting sneakier by creating their own drugs and using chemicals which are not only seriously hurting them, which I could careless about, i dont care what people do to themselves that is their business, but now since they can't have those drugs they are making meth which does not only hurt them but everyone who lives in that area with a few houses to a few blocks from them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's an edited version.

"The WoD is never going to solve or help the problem. The stricter they get about weed and pure cocaine, which are natural and not that damaging, the sneakier people get by creating their own drugs. They are using chemicals that are seriously hurting them. I don't care what people do to themselves. That is their business. But now, since they can't have those drugs, they are making meth, which hurts not only them, but everyone who lives in that area, within a few houses to a few blocks from them."

That says the same thing. It is still piffle, but it is at least readable. Whether a point is or is not valid, it must be presented coherently if the person wants others to consider it.

Communication is an art form that requires a command of words and grammar. Unfortunately, this instant communication medium has, as you noted, led to a massacre of English. Our language has suffered greatly since the advent of computers—and the collapse of public education, but that's another topic.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Our language has suffered greatly since the advent of computers—and the collapse of public education, but that's another topic." --DoctorDoom

You kin say dat agin!

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Oops! Spoke to soon....should have read more...sorry Doc!

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't apologize. Your reaction represents the response of others.

I do hope that the young lady doesn't consider my post an attack, but rather as grandfatherly advice. I cut my teeth in the local newsrag's letter column while a high school junior, 24 years before she was born. It didn't take long to discern that the quintessence of communication is carefully crafted sentences that convey thoughts clearly, precisely and unambiguously.

[Rink]

[ QUOTE ]
DoctorDoom said:
Young lady, before continuing, proofread and punctuate. It is difficult to decipher unpunctuated, run-on sentences. The essence of communication is verbal precision.

[ QUOTE ]
the WoD is never going to solve or help the problem because the more stricter they are getting about weed and pure cocain which are natural and not that damaging, people are getting sneakier by creating their own drugs and using chemicals which are not only seriously hurting them, which I could careless about, i dont care what people do to themselves that is their business, but now since they can't have those drugs they are making meth which does not only hurt them but everyone who lives in that area with a few houses to a few blocks from them.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is quite frankly unreadable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doc I sometimes think it has a lot to do with Kitten being dyslexic.

[Rink]

She does need to learn proper grammar and spelling though, if she wishes to be more understandable when it comes to writing.

I think they may have programs specifically for people with that dyslexia problem that helps them read and write correctly like anyone else.

It never hurts to do one of those programs anyways, as its never too late to continue perfecting ones english, grammar &amp; spelling skills.

PS: having a disability isnt an excuse, if one has a disability then I should think one would wish to find appropriate programs that would help teach that person in specifically related to that disability so they can succeed and exceed expectations.

After all Tom Cruise was dyslexic and from what I heard he worked very hard at overcoming that problem, and now can read &amp; write, but I think with all the understanding of dyslexia am sure they have programs specifically geared to help teach dyslexics how to read &amp; write, with less trouble than ever before because those programs are by design for dyslexics problems, thats why she should have been in some sort of program that would have helped her with the reading &amp; writing comprehension skills early on.

As tough and stubborn as she is one of those specific programs for dyslexics wouldnt hurt anyways, even though she already knows how to read and write, its always best to keep working on that, as everyone should do.

I was lucky to have been blessed with a love for english and grammar and spelling, and my old friend Jack melrose, helped me unlearn some bad habits I acquired from public school as well, he was a tough grammar teacher that never stopped correcting me all the time LOL

I dont think Doc was critisizing her per se, he like my old friend was more interested in helping her improve her grammar and spelling skills.

as you are Never too old to continue improving ones grammar and spelling, ever /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[Wolfcounsel]

"I am so glad there are so many perfectly smart scholars on here that never make mistakes." --magnummom

I was only joking, if you are referring to me as a smart scholar. I understood every word she said. I'm more of a smart ass than a smart scholar. At least that's what a few people call me.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
oc I sometimes think it has a lot to do with Kitten being dyslexic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's news to me. I'll cut her some slack.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
I am so glad there are so many perfectly smart scholars on here that never make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is not communication the raison d'être of this BB? And is communication not enhanced by precision in language?

Here's my edited version after a pass through the AOLer translator (http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html).

TEH WOD IS NEVAR GONG 2 SOLVE OR H3LP DA PROBLAM!111!111 OMG WTF TEH STRICTAR THAY G3T ABOUT WED AND PURA COCANEE WHICH R NATURAL AND NOT TAHT DMAGNG TEH SNEAKEIR PAOPLE GAT BY CREATNG THERE OWN DRUGS!!!1! OMG THAY R USNG CH3MICALS TAHT R SERIOUSLY HURTNG TH3M11!!1! WTF I DONT R WUT PAOPLA DO 2 THEMSALVES!!11!11! OMG TAHT IS THERE BUSIENS11!1!1!1 LOL BUT NOW SINC3 THEY CANT HAEV THOS3 DRUGS TH3Y R MAKNG METH WHICH HURTS NOT ONLY THEM BUT EVARYON3 WHO LIEVS IN TAHT AERA WITHIN A F3W HOUS3S 2 A FAW BLOKS FROM TH3M!!!11111 OMG WTF

When I see a badly constructed sentence or paragraph, that's what it looks like to me. It doesn't have a gawddamned thing to do with being "perfectly smart". It has everything to do with providing information in a manner that ensures maximum readability and clarity.

[Maggie_T]

[ QUOTE ]
Wolfcounsel said:
"...and YOU try reasoning with a drug user." --JonECat2002

I don't try to reason with dumbasses. That's why I keep my weapons clean and functioning perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon133.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon133.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon133.gif

Love ya, Counselor.

[Wolfcounsel]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[EveningStar]

DD,

You can also run it through the Pornolizer. (http://www.pornolize.com) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[Wolfcounsel]

The pornolizer is something else, heh heh. SHOCKING!