Obama's Sex & Drugs Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…

You seem to under the impression that “the War on Drugs” shouldn’t be completely overhauled. You also seem to believe that drug use isn’t an ingrained part of our current society whether you are able to see it or not. Someone like you, someone who has never experienced just how casual and expansive the use is, should not be in charge of inacting even more lies that haven’t worked.

We have had this discussion before (I started a thread on it a few weeks ago). The real question is whether we need to be trying to stop any and all drug use or whether using all of those billions of dollars for other social programs is the better option.[/quote]

This is an excellent point. IMHO, we should legalize pot surely - and probably cocaine in its non-crack forms, as well as some other more recreational drugs. I would still draw the line at stuff like crystal meth, heroin, etc. - but I think enforcement on those could be more effective both because there are a lot fewer users and a lot of resources would be freed up that are currently used to prosecute the far more popular cocaine and marijuana.

82

[quote]Professor X wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
On a more serious answer, what would the motivation be for someone to enact stricter drug controls when they used to enjoy getting high?

If our nation is going to waste billions of dollars trying to stop everyone from using drugs than they might as well put it to good use.

The last thing I would want is for someone to be so blind as to actually think that since all of those millions of dollars couldn’t stop drug use, that what is needed…is more laws and stricter control.

Are you saying you believe what we need are even more laws and greater control?

Also, how effective would a campaign be if someone get’s arrested for using coke under a drug enforcement policy the President signed and then that person goes to the media and says, “How fair is it that I got arrested for something the President likes to do?” That kills the campaign and the dollars spent on it are pissed down the toilet.

Gee, I don’t remember anyone writing that they want their president to get high while in office.

Finally, what possible use could practical knowledge of finding a dealer, knowing a good price, and then how to use a drug be used for as a President? What is he going to do, suggest to the crack heads a reasonable price to pay? I don’t see how it could be a benefit in any possible way.

I can foresee you suggesting that he may be able to recommend how police to cut it off at the source. However, what holds true for one city doesn�??t for another. So unless he bought coke in every city, his first hand experience doesn�??t help on the national level.

You seem to under the impression that “the War on Drugs” shouldn’t be completely overhauled. You also seem to believe that drug use isn’t an ingrained part of our current society whether you are able to see it or not. Someone like you, someone who has never experienced just how casual and expansive the use is, should not be in charge of inacting even more lies that haven’t worked.

We have had this discussion before (I started a thread on it a few weeks ago). The real question is whether we need to be trying to stop any and all drug use or whether using all of those billions of dollars for other social programs is the better option.[/quote]

Well prof. you very incorrectly assume I don’t have experience in this. Thanks for the compliment and I wish I didn’t have nearly as much experience as I do.

I may not have worded what I wanted correctly. I am not pushing for more laws, rather better use of the money. Let’s face it; you are the one living in an idealistic world if you think they will use the money on the War on Drugs for anything else. Not a chance.

What I am suggesting is that we do a better job of patrolling our borders and ports. I do not think it’s a good idea going after the end user, but rather controlling how it’s coming into our country. We should go after the large fish such as the drug cartels.

I have personally seen shipments unloaded at the ports and if that crap can get through, I shudder to think what terrorists could get through.

Going after these larger groups will also take care of wasting time and money on less destructive drugs such as pot and steroids while focusing on coke, crack, heroin, ect. as those are the drugs where the larger money is.

Also, people where talking about the President using while in office. Included in that was the whole discussion on Washington for example.

GEE, get the stick out of your ass, I wasn’t personally attacking your view points or anything.

83

Also Prof. I have seen first hand how the money was put to good use, stopping several hundred kilos of coke from reaching the US shores. I’ve been on both sides of the fence on this issue.

84

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…

You seem to under the impression that “the War on Drugs” shouldn’t be completely overhauled. You also seem to believe that drug use isn’t an ingrained part of our current society whether you are able to see it or not. Someone like you, someone who has never experienced just how casual and expansive the use is, should not be in charge of inacting even more lies that haven’t worked.

We have had this discussion before (I started a thread on it a few weeks ago). The real question is whether we need to be trying to stop any and all drug use or whether using all of those billions of dollars for other social programs is the better option.

This is an excellent point. IMHO, we should legalize pot surely - and probably cocaine in its non-crack forms, as well as some other more recreational drugs. I would still draw the line at stuff like crystal meth, heroin, etc. - but I think enforcement on those could be more effective both because there are a lot fewer users and a lot of resources would be freed up that are currently used to prosecute the far more popular cocaine and marijuana.[/quote]

America is unproductive enough as is without even more widespread drug use. I have never met anyone who has ever done drugs just because it was against the law. Therefore saying that legalizing it will lesson the use of it seems a pretty bad argument to me. Rather I see even more high schoolers using the drugs than they are currently. This would make less and less kids able to go to college as their grades will certainly suffer. The vast majority of kids who use drop their GPA’s in high school while they experiment.

Putting an age limit on it doesn’t solve the issue either. There’s an age limit on alcohol yet 6th grades are drinking in schools these days.

Lol ironically enough your avatar says Hippies Smell, yet you have a pretty hippie view point on legalizing pot.

85

I don’t think I argued that legalizing pot would lessen the use of pot, or that legalizing cocaine would lessen the use of cocaine - or that legalizing steroids would lessen the use of steroids. In fact, I’m pretty certain there would be some increase - though I’ve seen it estimated as relatively small.

I would keep “dangerous” drugs illegal under criminal law, and legalize drugs that I think can potentially be used safely, and would probably be used safely by the majority of people (note, they can be abused - like alcohol and even tobacco - can be abused). The argument that obviously presents itself is where to draw the line - but that’s the argument we should be having. My calculation would probably shift to keeping more substances criminally illegal the more we need to pay for health and welfare for abusers - but that would just switch me over to making just pot and mushrooms legal, for example.

We would save a ton of money on both enforcement and penal costs by removing pot and non-crack cocaine, and some other substances, from the list of “illegal” drugs. We would also raise tax revenue - these would be taxed like alcohol and tobacco, with rates high enough to discourage some marginal use.

We would have more revenue and other resources to fight the more dangerous drugs; fewer non-dangerous individuals would have their freedom taken and lives ruined by charges of possession with intent to distribute marijuana; the highly-abused drug enforcement and property seizure statutes would be less likely to be applied to non-violent individuals.

We would rely more on societal pressure to help combat abuse of the “safe” drugs, much like we do with alcohol and tobacco.

Here is a good pro-legalization article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=981

Here’s a good critique of some legalization arguments from the right (though the author favors legalizing pot): http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjc2YzAyNzI3OGY1NzQxOTNlYmI3MmQ2MmNjYWJhODY=

86

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:

On a more serious answer, what would the motivation be for someone to enact stricter drug controls when they used to enjoy getting high?

If our nation is going to waste billions of dollars trying to stop everyone from using drugs than they might as well put it to good use.

Also, how effective would a campaign be if someone get’s arrested for using coke under a drug enforcement policy the President signed and then that person goes to the media and says, “How fair is it that I got arrested for something the President likes to do?” That kills the campaign and the dollars spent on it are pissed down the toilet.

Finally, what possible use could practical knowledge of finding a dealer, knowing a good price, and then how to use a drug be used for as a President? What is he going to do, suggest to the crack heads a reasonable price to pay? I don’t see how it could be a benefit in any possible way.

I can foresee you suggesting that he may be able to recommend how police to cut it off at the source. However, what holds true for one city doesn�??t for another. So unless he bought coke in every city, his first hand experience doesn�??t help on the national level.
[/quote]

So people are incapable of learning from poor decisions they made in their youths? I behave as a responsible adult because I did stupid things as a teenager/child and observed the consequences first hand rather than in spite of this.

In the particular case of drug abuse a person with first hand experience is much more likely to understand the nuances associated with a particular drug, understand the motivations of users, and more realistically assess the consequences (than someone who has no reason to think “Reefer Madness” was inaccurate). Moreover, someone who had experimented in their younger years would probably be a whole lot less likely to believe that a program like DARE would be a productive anti-drug policy.

87

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Up until NP “went too far”, I didn’t notice anyone taking issue with the fact that allegations of him having sexual relations with another man were used to put him in a negative light. As long as its not too racist or too homophobic, as long as nobody “goes too far with it”, it gets the wink and nod approval.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I really didn’t read the OP. I saw it was by jlesk, so I skipped it until I saw people responding. Then I glanced at the OP and read the responses. I think the most responsive comment addressing the OP was mine questioning whether the link was to a porn site… until of course NP made his comment. You may choose not to believe it, but I didn’t realize the allegation was about gay sex until NPs post. Not that I care - you can read it a lot of different ways; I agree with RJ in that the discussion was about sex in general and drug use in general.
[/quote]

Choose not to believe it? There was one sentence in the middle of a bunch of links. “Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.” Yet you didn’t notice it was about gay sex till after NPs comment? And dont bs that it was about “sex in general”. There arent any other accusations about any of his other possible sexual partners.

I love the internet. By which I mean, I’m never a google away from finding out what a shiny new I’m-smarter-than-you word means. But I’m just going to skip it and file “stultifying” under “summthin bad”.

I dont go out of my way to look for those things, but I do try to speak up when I see them. The fact is, someone accused him of having sex with another man because, if people believe it, they are less likely to vote for him. Nevermind that having experimented sexually with a man (years ago) would have NO bearing whatsoever on what kind of job he would do as president: if you can label him a homosexual, his chances of winning are about nil.

You can act like that isn’t true, but then why didnt anyone come forward with information about a woman he has slept with in the past? Or are we to assume he has only been with his wife?

[quote]

I admit that my reading style on here is to skip over posts by a lot of people - or pages of posts if I’m getting in late on a thread. I don’t read a lot of posts if the OP title doesn’t catch my attention - even if they have a lot of responses. I happened to catch NPs sad post because I was involved in a separate discussion with Prof X at that juncture. So Sherlock, sometimes the dog that doesn’t bark only signifies that the dog is asleep, inside, out for a walk or enjoying a nice bone… To put it another way, just because you struck upon one possible answer out of many, don’t kid yourself that you’ve proved your point.[/quote]

I dont follow… I struck upon one possible answer out of many? Seriously, I’m not sure what you mean there.

The “answer” I struck on was observing that people pretend like homophobia/racism/xenophobia/sexism/etc doesnt exist as long as its in tolerable amounts.

88

[quote]

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Up until NP “went too far”, I didn’t notice anyone taking issue with the fact that allegations of him having sexual relations with another man were used to put him in a negative light. As long as its not too racist or too homophobic, as long as nobody “goes too far with it”, it gets the wink and nod approval.

BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t know about anyone else, but I really didn’t read the OP. I saw it was by jlesk, so I skipped it until I saw people responding. Then I glanced at the OP and read the responses. I think the most responsive comment addressing the OP was mine questioning whether the link was to a porn site… until of course NP made his comment. You may choose not to believe it, but I didn’t realize the allegation was about gay sex until NPs post. Not that I care - you can read it a lot of different ways; I agree with RJ in that the discussion was about sex in general and drug use in general.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Choose not to believe it? There was one sentence in the middle of a bunch of links. “Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.” Yet you didn’t notice it was about gay sex till after NPs comment? And dont bs that it was about “sex in general”. There arent any other accusations about any of his other possible sexual partners. [/quote]

Yup, didn’t read it. Read the title, and saw the “whitehouse.com” link, which I thought was funny, as I was scrolling down. I’d guess that stood out due to the red text for links. I didn’t actually click on any of the links either. Like I said, it was a jlesk post, and I skip over those… I’ve wasted enough time reading/responding to wacky conspiracy theories and bottom-trolling internet stories.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It might make you feel morally superior to find racism, sexism, homophobia, elitism, xenophobia, etc., etc., under every rock and hiding around every corner - or it may just be reflexive. I don’t know - but to me it seems rather negative to your outlook and stultifying to your ultimate objective.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I love the internet. By which I mean, I’m never a google away from finding out what a shiny new I’m-smarter-than-you word means. But I’m just going to skip it and file “stultifying” under “summthin bad”.

I dont go out of my way to look for those things, but I do try to speak up when I see them. The fact is, someone accused him of having sex with another man because, if people believe it, they are less likely to vote for him. Nevermind that having experimented sexually with a man (years ago) would have NO bearing whatsoever on what kind of job he would do as president: if you can label him a homosexual, his chances of winning are about nil.

You can act like that isn’t true, but then why didnt anyone come forward with information about a woman he has slept with in the past? Or are we to assume he has only been with his wife?[/quote]

Yes - someone accused him, and that someone believes the accusation will hurt him, so thus America is generally homophobic. See any jumps of logic there? Just because you agree with his premise (the premise it would hurt him) doesn’t mean you’ve not made a huge jump in your logic.

Though, interestingly, one could, using your general theory, come up with the conclusion that the someone who planted the story thought Democrats wouldn’t vote for Obama because of the story, given it was published during the primaries and its beneficiary would be Hillary Clinton (the candidate Republicans would rather run against in the general election, given the polling numbers with McCain).

Also, once again with the dog that didn’t bark logic. How should I know why people aren’t coming forward with accusations about women? Why aren’t they accusing him of blowing goats? Let’s think of everything Obama has not been accused of, and then let’s use that as back up for an argument about why Americans think being gay is worse than all of those…

BTW, sorry if you don’t like my vocabulary - it just rolls off the tongue (or fingers in this case).

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I admit that my reading style on here is to skip over posts by a lot of people - or pages of posts if I’m getting in late on a thread. I don’t read a lot of posts if the OP title doesn’t catch my attention - even if they have a lot of responses. I happened to catch NPs sad post because I was involved in a separate discussion with Prof X at that juncture. So Sherlock, sometimes the dog that doesn’t bark only signifies that the dog is asleep, inside, out for a walk or enjoying a nice bone… To put it another way, just because you struck upon one possible answer out of many, don’t kid yourself that you’ve proved your point.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I dont follow… I struck upon one possible answer out of many? Seriously, I’m not sure what you mean there.

The “answer” I struck on was observing that people pretend like homophobia/racism/xenophobia/sexism/etc doesnt exist as long as its in tolerable amounts. [/quote]

There wasn’t any racism to respond to until NP’s post. You’re making logical leaps to try to get the facts to fit your homophobia conclusion. Yet here you are, hounding about them after the one incident was called out. I suppose your “answer” is still plausible - but the other possibilities - such as people only commenting on what they notice and find plausible - seems a lot more convincing.

89

Two things I want to throw out:

I don’t read enough of NP’s posts to recognize a pattern, but maybe he was just pointing out what’s on a few million other people’s minds. A few weeks ago, just after Romney bailed, I overheard the comment: “great, so now our choice is down to an asshole, a bitch or a n____r.” at work. Everyone else who heard it thought it was funny as hell, I reported it to HR.

The second thing is that Obama would be the first presidential candidate I’ve ever voted for who’s younger than me. I’m fifty, and I tried just about every drug imaginable during the period from 1972 until around 1985. In high school a buddy’s dad was a DR, and everything we could find we’d look up in his dad’s PDR and try to figure out if we could get high.

I guess it only makes sense that a fairly substantial percentage of people born after about 1950 has at least tried marijuana and/or cocaine. Who knows, one of these days maybe we’ll even get to vote for a candidate who’s “experienced”.

90

[quote]tme wrote:
Two things I want to throw out:

I don’t read enough of NP’s posts to recognize a pattern, but maybe he was just pointing out what’s on a few million other people’s minds. A few weeks ago, just after Romney bailed, I overheard the comment: “great, so now our choice is down to an asshole, a bitch or a n____r.” at work. Everyone else who heard it thought it was funny as hell, I reported it to HR.

The second thing is that Obama would be the first presidential candidate I’ve ever voted for who’s younger than me. I’m fifty, and I tried just about every drug imaginable during the period from 1972 until around 1985. In high school a buddy’s dad was a DR, and everything we could find we’d look up in his dad’s PDR and try to figure out if we could get high.

I guess it only makes sense that a fairly substantial percentage of people born after about 1950 has at least tried marijuana and/or cocaine. Who knows, one of these days maybe we’ll even get to vote for a candidate who’s “experienced”.
[/quote]

Well that explains WAY more than you even know.

91

[quote]tme wrote:
Two things I want to throw out:

I don’t read enough of NP’s posts to recognize a pattern, but maybe he was just pointing out what’s on a few million other people’s minds. A few weeks ago, just after Romney bailed, I overheard the comment: “great, so now our choice is down to an asshole, a bitch or a n____r.” at work. Everyone else who heard it thought it was funny as hell, I reported it to HR.

[/quote]

Yikes. Where the heck do you work, Stormfront HQs?

92

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Yes - someone accused him, and that someone believes the accusation will hurt him, so thus America is generally homophobic. See any jumps of logic there? Just because you agree with his premise (the premise it would hurt him) doesn’t mean you’ve not made a huge jump in your logic.
[/quote]

Please tell me that convincing American voters that he experimented sexually with a man years ago would not negatively affect his chances of becoming president.

I could use the laugh.

I don’t care why they did it, I care that it would, were it considered credible, be effective.

This is the poorest argument I’ve ever heard from you. Seriously. I’m not even going to try to argue with it because its complete nonsense. If you have to go that far out of your normal coherency, just admit that no one accused him of having sex with a woman because its assumed he has and no one would try to use that against him.

If a story of him having sex with a white woman years ago surfaced as an obvious attempt to hurt his chances of being elected, do you think that would indicate racism? Or would it not because they didnt accuse him of raping a nine year old cancer patient, or some other such nonsense?

[quote]

BTW, sorry if you don’t like my vocabulary - it just rolls off the tongue (or fingers in this case).

BostonBarrister wrote:

I admit that my reading style on here is to skip over posts by a lot of people - or pages of posts if I’m getting in late on a thread. I don’t read a lot of posts if the OP title doesn’t catch my attention - even if they have a lot of responses. I happened to catch NPs sad post because I was involved in a separate discussion with Prof X at that juncture. So Sherlock, sometimes the dog that doesn’t bark only signifies that the dog is asleep, inside, out for a walk or enjoying a nice bone… To put it another way, just because you struck upon one possible answer out of many, don’t kid yourself that you’ve proved your point.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I dont follow… I struck upon one possible answer out of many? Seriously, I’m not sure what you mean there.

The “answer” I struck on was observing that people pretend like homophobia/racism/xenophobia/sexism/etc doesnt exist as long as its in tolerable amounts.

There wasn’t any racism to respond to until NP’s post. You’re making logical leaps to try to get the facts to fit your homophobia conclusion. Yet here you are, hounding about them after the one incident was called out. I suppose your “answer” is still plausible - but the other possibilities - such as people only commenting on what they notice and find plausible - seems a lot more convincing.[/quote]

I already explained that, though it wasnt in this thread, there have been racist comments about Obama in others. Furthermore, I was using this thread as an example of how different forms of bigotry exist and are only spoken out against when someone is egregious about it.

You’re trying to accuse me of doing something I havent.

93

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Yes - someone accused him, and that someone believes the accusation will hurt him, so thus America is generally homophobic. See any jumps of logic there? Just because you agree with his premise (the premise it would hurt him) doesn’t mean you’ve not made a huge jump in your logic.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Please tell me that convincing American voters that he experimented sexually with a man years ago would not negatively affect his chances of becoming president.

I could use the laugh.[/quote]

I couldn’t tell you that it could never have any negative effect. Who knows? It would depend on how many people otherwise inclined to vote for a left-wing progressive candidate would not vote for such a candidate based solely on whether he had experimented with gay sex. Apparently you think that would be a large proportion.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Though, interestingly, one could, using your general theory, come up with the conclusion that the someone who planted the story thought Democrats wouldn’t vote for Obama because of the story, given it was published during the primaries and its beneficiary would be Hillary Clinton (the candidate Republicans would rather run against in the general election, given the polling numbers with McCain).

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I don’t care why they did it, I care that it would, were it considered credible, be effective. [/quote]

See above. BTW, did you check out the rumor about McCain having a heterosexual affair. Apparently the NYT thinks that will affect his electability - those blatant heterophobes.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Also, once again with the dog that didn’t bark logic. How should I know why people aren’t coming forward with accusations about women? Why aren’t they accusing him of blowing goats? Let’s think of everything Obama has not been accused of, and then let’s use that as back up for an argument about why Americans think being gay is worse than all of those…

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

This is the poorest argument I’ve ever heard from you. Seriously. I’m not even going to try to argue with it because its complete nonsense. If you have to go that far out of your normal coherency, just admit that no one accused him of having sex with a woman because its assumed he has and no one would try to use that against him.

If a story of him having sex with a white woman years ago surfaced as an obvious attempt to hurt his chances of being elected, do you think that would indicate racism? Or would it not because they didnt accuse him of raping a nine year old cancer patient, or some other such nonsense?[/quote]

There could be many reasons why some low-life internet publisher trolling for a story might choose to make an accusation of drugs and gay sex. More shock value because it’s unexpected? There are plenty of similar stories about Republican gay child-sex rings in Iowa or something - go ask justthefacts. I’m sure they were all originated by homophobes.

And even if someone were trying to adversely affect his electability, from the right or the left it wouldn’t be much of a discerning factor anymore. The Dems bent themselves into pretzels claiming extramarital affairs don’t matter with their last President - the current candidate being complicit in that argument. McCain had affairs and is divorced. How to differentiate one’s ridiculous internet rumors?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I admit that my reading style on here is to skip over posts by a lot of people - or pages of posts if I’m getting in late on a thread. I don’t read a lot of posts if the OP title doesn’t catch my attention - even if they have a lot of responses. I happened to catch NPs sad post because I was involved in a separate discussion with Prof X at that juncture. So Sherlock, sometimes the dog that doesn’t bark only signifies that the dog is asleep, inside, out for a walk or enjoying a nice bone… To put it another way, just because you struck upon one possible answer out of many, don’t kid yourself that you’ve proved your point.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I dont follow… I struck upon one possible answer out of many? Seriously, I’m not sure what you mean there.

The “answer” I struck on was observing that people pretend like homophobia/racism/xenophobia/sexism/etc doesnt exist as long as its in tolerable amounts.

BostonBarrister wrote:
There wasn’t any racism to respond to until NP’s post. You’re making logical leaps to try to get the facts to fit your homophobia conclusion. Yet here you are, hounding about them after the one incident was called out. I suppose your “answer” is still plausible - but the other possibilities - such as people only commenting on what they notice and find plausible - seems a lot more convincing.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I already explained that, though it wasnt in this thread, there have been racist comments about Obama in others. Furthermore, I was using this thread as an example of how different forms of bigotry exist and are only spoken out against when someone is egregious about it.

You’re trying to accuse me of doing something I havent. [/quote]

Hmmm. You didn’t complain about the homophobia you claimed to find in this thread until I complained about the racism. And I don’t recall your calling out the alleged racism in the other threads. Did that just mean you were comfortable with it?

I want to add a note to my reading habits above: I read your posts when I want to see the written equivalent of panties getting twisted into a wad.

94

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…Choose not to believe it? There was one sentence in the middle of a bunch of links. “Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.” Yet you didn’t notice it was about gay sex till after NPs comment? And dont bs that it was about “sex in general”. There arent any other accusations about any of his other possible sexual partners.

… [/quote]

I didn’t realize it was gay sex until BB commented on NP’s post.

I skim jlesk’s posts for the humor value.

95

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I don’t think I argued that legalizing pot would lessen the use of pot, or that legalizing cocaine would lessen the use of cocaine - or that legalizing steroids would lessen the use of steroids. In fact, I’m pretty certain there would be some increase - though I’ve seen it estimated as relatively small.
[/quote]

While I still don’t agree with your stance I like that you weren’t using that argument. Too many pro-legalize pot people use that as a valid argument.

96

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…Choose not to believe it? There was one sentence in the middle of a bunch of links. “Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.” Yet you didn’t notice it was about gay sex till after NPs comment? And dont bs that it was about “sex in general”. There arent any other accusations about any of his other possible sexual partners.

…

I didn’t realize it was gay sex until BB commented on NP’s post.

I skim jlesk’s posts for the humor value. [/quote]

Why thank you Zap.

97

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…Choose not to believe it? There was one sentence in the middle of a bunch of links. “Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.” Yet you didn’t notice it was about gay sex till after NPs comment? And dont bs that it was about “sex in general”. There arent any other accusations about any of his other possible sexual partners.

…

I didn’t realize it was gay sex until BB commented on NP’s post.

I skim jlesk’s posts for the humor value.

Why thank you Zap.[/quote]

You are by far the best conspiracy nut here! No contest.

98

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

I don’t think I argued that legalizing pot would lessen the use of pot, or that legalizing cocaine would lessen the use of cocaine - or that legalizing steroids would lessen the use of steroids. In fact, I’m pretty certain there would be some increase - though I’ve seen it estimated as relatively small.

While I still don’t agree with your stance I like that you weren’t using that argument. Too many pro-legalize pot people use that as a valid argument.[/quote]

Since I have seen the taxation proposals in Switzerland that were higher than the actual street price now, the increase in prize could indeed lead to less consumption.

99

[quote]orion wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

I don’t think I argued that legalizing pot would lessen the use of pot, or that legalizing cocaine would lessen the use of cocaine - or that legalizing steroids would lessen the use of steroids. In fact, I’m pretty certain there would be some increase - though I’ve seen it estimated as relatively small.

While I still don’t agree with your stance I like that you weren’t using that argument. Too many pro-legalize pot people use that as a valid argument.

Since I have seen the taxation proposals in Switzerland that were higher than the actual street price now, the increase in prize could indeed lead to less consumption.

[/quote]

Not likely, many teenagers have a crap ton of disposable income. I mean they live with their parents and eat their food, but work after school and during the summers. Plenty of cash for pot. Plus it’s not that horribly expensive anyway. $60 for an 1/8, I’m sure they could scratch that money together pretty quickly.

100

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
orion wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

I don’t think I argued that legalizing pot would lessen the use of pot, or that legalizing cocaine would lessen the use of cocaine - or that legalizing steroids would lessen the use of steroids. In fact, I’m pretty certain there would be some increase - though I’ve seen it estimated as relatively small.

While I still don’t agree with your stance I like that you weren’t using that argument. Too many pro-legalize pot people use that as a valid argument.

Since I have seen the taxation proposals in Switzerland that were higher than the actual street price now, the increase in prize could indeed lead to less consumption.

Not likely, many teenagers have a crap ton of disposable income. I mean they live with their parents and eat their food, but work after school and during the summers. Plenty of cash for pot. Plus it’s not that horribly expensive anyway. $60 for an 1/8, I’m sure they could scratch that money together pretty quickly.
[/quote]

The point was that people assume that other people would use more drugs because legalization would make them cheaper.

Since legalization would most likely cause prices to rise, demand should fall, as it always does when prices rise.

Since at least non-addictive drugs are luxury items I´d expect their price elasticity to be pretty high.