Show Us Your Papers

[Balloon guy 158]

KRAMER: Jerry, I just picked up the Cubans at the bus station.What's going on!?JERRY: What?KRAMER: They're not real Cubans. They're Dominicans.JERRY: So?KRAMER: So, Jerry, if my investors don't get Cubans, the whole deal's off.JERRY: What's the difference?KRAMER: Jerry, once you've had real Cubans, there's just nothing else likeit.JERRY: We're talking about people, right?

I'm about to head off for a road trip into North Hollywood and I have my cigars all in a row, so this post made me smile.But I must admit every time I see Kramer now I think about his racist rant. He's not funny anymore to me at all.So I'll be smoking the first of 3 cigars in exactly 5 minutes..plus stopping off at El Burrito in Redlands for the single greatest burrito ever made in this country: The Garbage Burrito. I am very excited about my life for the next 1.4 hours. After that I will be in LA and then my life will suck.So please do not destroy the earth for the next hour and a half, after which feel free. I know where I will be going when I die.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm the other guy PORAC was talking about with the "would smoke weed if it were legal" argument. I wouldn't do it often, it'd just replace booze once in a while. The only reason I don't do it is because it's a pain in the ass. I would NEVER, EVER jeopardize the way my mind works with anything harder, and that's the real concern with this whole drug discussion.

Gateway drug..you'll be hooked on heroin in about 2 weeks.Sucker

[mk 11]

This is twice that I have mentioned the legalization of pot in an American state and it's harmful effects that caused it to be re-criminalized with everyone pretending that it didn't happen.

read this:it seems there was a host of exogenous factors that influenced the rise in usage in alaska, not decriminalization. also, after recriminalizing they have since decriminalized once again. so, you know, guess it wasn't that bad.

[nutzbuster 7]

recent love from some friends who love their country...

[strategy 4]

recent love from some friends who love their country...

if you're gonna be a troll, you might as well try to be a good one.did you learn nothing from beans' cartoons??

[Roll the Bones 74]

I think i'm missing something. Is Mariuana good for you? It seems some of you guys want to fight the fire by feeding the flames.Is smoking herb a victimless crime? Does it infringe on others freedoms in any way?Should we be able to pass laws for things the public deems unhealthy?Also...It's been mentioned numerous times that the war on drugs is a failure. I haven't seen anyone disagree but how about doing things to make the our side more effective, e.g. most companies drug test. How about making it mandatory for anyone wanting to work to pass a stringent drug test? It would certainly cost less than what we're spending now. If doing drugs makes you unemployable I'm sure it would curtail the problem. This is just a suggestion that I haven't really thought through but it doesn't seem that difficult. I also think that better education for our youth about drugs would help but that's another thing.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I think $17K is unreasonable. It should be tied to the cost of background checks, paperwork, etc. I posted earlier about redcardsolution.com, whose solution is to privatize it -- you pay a company to do the background checks and let you in. They compete on quality and price -- quality of background checks for government, price to charge the people who come here. If people from Afghanistan want to come here, I'm fine with that. We know who is tied to Al Qeda and Taliban, so we eliminated that 1%; the rest are welcome.

Cool, so you have no problem lowering the fee to $200 and letting 20 million people from all over the globe come here, lower the standard of living, create an education nightmare, raise our taxes to 80% to pay for the welfare, let alone being inconvienenced at every business you turn too since many won't speak English. And you was worried about your son being inconvienced by cops asking for papers? You really don't see any problems with this?As much as I love and respect your altruism on this, believing that people are inherantly good, we know all too well they aren't. 30% of Arizona's population is there illegally, 500,000 people. You don't think that's a problem in any way?

[SlapStick 0]

This part confusses me.The declared it successful? You sure about that?They declared it successful and then shut it down?I think you need to re-read the needle park experiment.

I think you need to re-read your imaginary needle park experiment. There were needle parks. Basically they were normal parks that jnkies used illegal heroin. They took some of the junkies and gave them prescribed heroin from clinics. Starting with a small amount of repeated offenders and then adding more. It was successful in reducing the amount junkies using needles in parks. So successful that they voted on it and its now legal for junkies to get their shot of heroin from clinics. So yes it was successful, no they didn't shut it down, unless by shut it down you mean they enforced it nationwide.-------------------------This isn't too relevant to the OP but its interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8658017.stm

[nutzbuster 7]

did you learn nothing from beans' cartoons??

not sure.I'll set up the red velvet ropes right now...gimme a sec....

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I assume by we you mean other people who can actually argue a side, because you so far have not shown the ability to do it with a smidgen of thoughtfulness.

anyone can argue a side. i could argue your side for you, better than could. or i could argue rationally, with reason and logic, using statistics and evidence to make my points. just because i do not waste my time trying to penetrate your wall of ignorance does not mean that i dont know how.

[Ninjafoo 0]

I think you need to re-read your imaginary needle park experiment. There were needle parks. Basically they were normal parks that jnkies used illegal heroin. They took some of the junkies and gave them prescribed heroin from clinics. Starting with a small amount of repeated offenders and then adding more. It was successful in reducing the amount junkies using needles in parks. So successful that they voted on it and its now legal for junkies to get their shot of heroin from clinics. So yes it was successful, no they didn't shut it down, unless by shut it down you mean they enforced it nationwide.-------------------------This isn't too relevant to the OP but its interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8658017.stm

Nobody clicked on my link did they? Everyone keeps saying h has data to back up that legalization works. He posted a link where one country is seemingly having success. I posted a link showing that many countries have tried and failed at legalization. I believe that makes his data the dreaded isolated incident. Here it is again http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htmAnd just as an fyi I don't consider myself right wing, or left wing, or democrat, or republican. My father is very republican and I argue against him most of the time. I also think pot should not be classified as a drug in the same way meth and heroine are.

[vbnautilus 48]

Nobody clicked on my link did they? Everyone keeps saying h has data to back up that legalization works. He posted a link where one country is seemingly having success. I posted a link showing that many countries have tried and failed at legalization. I believe that makes his data the dreaded isolated incident. Here it is again http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htmAnd just as an fyi I don't consider myself right wing, or left wing, or democrat, or republican. My father is very republican and I argue against him most of the time. I also think pot should not be classified as a drug in the same way meth and heroine are.

That site is very cute and all, how it does your arguing for you with "if they say this", "then you say this", but it isn't actually correct or anything. For example: If they say...The Swiss decriminalized drugs without any adverse consequences.Then you say...As of February 1992, Switzerland officially rejected its policy of decriminalization. [Roger Cohen, "Amid Growing Crime, Zurich Closes a Park It Reserved for Drug Addicts," New York Times, February 11, 1992].Yeah, that's just false. Or at best, misleading. While that specific park was closed (in favor of other locations), the policy was not changed. See for example, recent news: (NEWSER) – Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a safe-injection program for heroin addicts today, BBC reports. The referendum, backed by 68% of voters, makes permanent a 14-year-old Swiss program that allows doctors to shoot up heroin users while attending to their medical and mental health needs. Switzerland will be the first nation to make such a program official policy.Or if you prefer wikipedia: In 1994 Switzerland was one of the first countries to try heroin-assisted treatment and other harm reduction measures like supervised injection rooms. In 2008 a popular initiative by the right wing Swiss People's Party aimed at ending the heroin program was rejected by more than two thirds of the voters. A simultaneous initiative aimed at legalizing marijuana was rejected at the same ballot.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

That site is very cute and all, how it does your arguing for you with "if they say this", "then you say this", but it isn't actually correct or anything. For example: If they say...The Swiss decriminalized drugs without any adverse consequences.Then you say...As of February 1992, Switzerland officially rejected its policy of decriminalization. [Roger Cohen, "Amid Growing Crime, Zurich Closes a Park It Reserved for Drug Addicts," New York Times, February 11, 1992].Yeah, that's just false. Or at best, misleading. While that specific park was closed (in favor of other locations), the policy was not changed. See for example, recent news: (NEWSER) – Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a safe-injection program for heroin addicts today, BBC reports. The referendum, backed by 68% of voters, makes permanent a 14-year-old Swiss program that allows doctors to shoot up heroin users while attending to their medical and mental health needs. Switzerland will be the first nation to make such a program official policy.Or if you prefer wikipedia: In 1994 Switzerland was one of the first countries to try heroin-assisted treatment and other harm reduction measures like supervised injection rooms. In 2008 a popular initiative by the right wing Swiss People's Party aimed at ending the heroin program was rejected by more than two thirds of the voters. A simultaneous initiative aimed at legalizing marijuana was rejected at the same ballot.

i dunno, vb. your excerpts say nothing about heroines.

[Ninjafoo 0]

That site is very cute and all, how it does your arguing for you with "if they say this", "then you say this", but it isn't actually correct or anything. For example: If they say...The Swiss decriminalized drugs without any adverse consequences.Then you say...As of February 1992, Switzerland officially rejected its policy of decriminalization. [Roger Cohen, "Amid Growing Crime, Zurich Closes a Park It Reserved for Drug Addicts," New York Times, February 11, 1992].Yeah, that's just false. Or at best, misleading. While that specific park was closed (in favor of other locations), the policy was not changed. See for example, recent news: (NEWSER) – Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a safe-injection program for heroin addicts today, BBC reports. The referendum, backed by 68% of voters, makes permanent a 14-year-old Swiss program that allows doctors to shoot up heroin users while attending to their medical and mental health needs. Switzerland will be the first nation to make such a program official policy.Or if you prefer wikipedia: In 1994 Switzerland was one of the first countries to try heroin-assisted treatment and other harm reduction measures like supervised injection rooms. In 2008 a popular initiative by the right wing Swiss People's Party aimed at ending the heroin program was rejected by more than two thirds of the voters. A simultaneous initiative aimed at legalizing marijuana was rejected at the same ballot.

That talks of a policy where doctors are essentially taking care of addicts, not addicts being able to use willy nilly. It also says nothing about the number of users.I have to admit I didn't like that format, but it doesn't take away from facts. I also enjoyed how you copied the first line and forgot the other two:Allowing a city park to be used as a "drug legalized" area of Zurich, the number of addicts escalated from a few hundred to over 20,000 within several years. [Roger Cohen, citation above]. Swiss officials now admit that their policy of legalization-decriminalization served to increase crime, especially property crimes and prostitution. [Roger Cohen, citation above]. They show many situations where legalization increased the number of addicts. I thought that was the argument that legalization always (or at least most of the time) makes usage go down, and that criminalization makes usage go up.

[hblask 1]

We were talking about drugs being a victimless crime, If heroine were legal it would still be the direct factor in this crime.

It's not the heroin use that's the problem, it's the other crimes. Maybe if the police weren't busy harassing stoneheads whose worst crime is not sharing the Cheetos, they'd have time to pursue robberies.

You were implying the war on drugs was stopping him from getting help, he was given plenty of help.

People rarely ask for help voluntarily for fear of imprisonment. Remove that fear and people who want help will ask.

By simply opposing the bill you imply that you assume all white cops are racist, not to mention other racist statments about rich white people. You are under the stance that racism can not be tolerated. You also are of the stance that one isolated instance of abuse of the this new law is unacceptable, yet you asked me if "I was just using isolated instances to justify racism," implying that those isolated instances have to be disregarded. Hypocrisy comes from the word hypocrite, here is the definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/hypocrite

I'm not sure if you are just confused, or trolling, or just not very literate. Whichever it is, what you are saying makes no sense.

*edit I forgot to point out where you say "all crimes should be invesitgated, regardless of immigrant status." Being here illegaly is a crime, you think we should investigate people being here illegaly?

I should've said all sensible, morally justifiable laws should be investigated, but I was tired of typing, and I assume that, from the discussion up to this point, that anyone who has been paying attention would know what I meant.

[hblask 1]

The difference is drugs like heroine and meth will take any and every regular law abiding citizen and make them do things they would never dream of doing to get their drug if they can't by other means, or do things they normally wouldn't because it is the easiest way to get them. You've never hear of a casual meth user.

Data please. This is an extraordinary claim that sounds like it's straight from Reefer Madness, and considering the number of people who've tried drugs vs the number who become addicted, it seems totally implausible. Therefore, without supporting data, I am left to conclude you are getting extremely desperate and just making stuff up.

[hblask 1]

Dems are your friends here. I thought you would favor principles over party identification. Don't be a Republican and slander those who have the facts on their side.

I know.... I was just trying to get a rise out of BG I'm really fed up with the Republicans right now, they really have shown no inclination to take this turning point and turn it into something good.

[Ninjafoo 0]

Yeah, I guess like seat belt laws. I don't see why it should be a law. I don't buckle my seatbelt in a car to avoid a ticket, I do it to avoid my face hitting the dashboard. And I do it every time, even in taxis.(I guess there's the minor caveat that seat belts make you a slightly better driver because you slip out of your chair if you take a sharp turn. So, the law in theory can reduce potential harm to others.)

lol. But seriously, when someone gets in an accident and doesn't have their seatbelt on it, on average, makes their injuries worse. Now if the same person doesn't have insurance or money to cover the medical bills, then someone else becomes liable for the costs (the hospital could have to absorb the costs, their kids could have to pay for it because now the family will be in debt for years...etc) or maybe a kid has to grow up without a parent now. So it does affect other people in certain cases, not physically but it does affect other people, and when it happens thousands and thousands of times over it becomes an issue.

[hblask 1]

To clarify, my comments were about the drug part of the conversation, not the immigration part. The drug part is cut and dry, the immigration part is shaky.BG made a good comment when he pointed out that people don't immigrate to the US for jobs alone, and maybe H overlooked that point when forming some of his argument.

I haven't pursued that part, because the people coming here to escape death are a much smaller part of the problem. But would anyone really turn away someone escaping political persecution? I don't believe our nation has become that heartless.

[Ninjafoo 0]

It's not the heroin use that's the problem, it's the other crimes. Maybe if the police weren't busy harassing stoneheads whose worst crime is not sharing the Cheetos, they'd have time to pursue robberies.I see how you belive we only need to treat the effect and not the cause....doesn't seem to go well with your other idealsPeople rarely ask for help voluntarily for fear of imprisonment. Remove that fear and people who want help will ask.Plenty of people go to rehab, it doesn't always work. Remove the fear and the majority of people who don't ask for help still wont ask. You also say criminalization (or telling people they will go to jail for using) makes people use more, but the same fear of going to jail makes them get help less, that doesn't make sense.I'm not sure if you are just confused, or trolling, or just not very literate. Whichever it is, what you are saying makes no sense.You speak out against something and then do the exact same thing, you don't have to be very literate to figure that out.I should've said all sensible, morally justifiable laws should be investigated, but I was tired of typing, and I assume that, from the discussion up to this point, that anyone who has been paying attention would know what I meant.

[Ninjafoo 0]

Data please. This is an extraordinary claim that sounds like it's straight from Reefer Madness, and considering the number of people who've tried drugs vs the number who become addicted, it seems totally implausible. Therefore, without supporting data, I am left to conclude you are getting extremely desperate and just making stuff up.

Again poor wording on my part since I forgot every post but yours can and has to be taken literally word for word. I should have said you don't have to look very hard to find plenty of stories, where people who have had no criminal past, commit crimes in direct relation to their addiction.

[hblask 1]

No the question is, should we risk the lives of our children to a life of drug abuse and death in order to try out an experiment that has no need because it will not result in helping anyone, or should we continue to take the drug addicts in our midst and realize that hard drugs are not something we want in our country?

But my loaded questions have a factual basis. See, when you say "risk the lives of our children", that is clearly a falsehood, because legalization makes it more difficult for kids to get drugs. So prohibition is the policy that is risking the lives of children, and it is not helping anyone.Harming children is not an effective way of helping them.

[hblask 1]

How about we try to keep out the ones that, you know, kill people and enslave them?I mean we should probably place a sliding scale on who we want to allow to be legal?

Pretty sure nobody has been arguing to allow in criminals. But keeping out people who want to come here to work is very bad policy.

[hblask 1]

I think i'm missing something. Is Mariuana good for you? It seems some of you guys want to fight the fire by feeding the flames.Is smoking herb a victimless crime? Does it infringe on others freedoms in any way?Should we be able to pass laws for things the public deems unhealthy?Also...It's been mentioned numerous times that the war on drugs is a failure. I haven't seen anyone disagree but how about doing things to make the our side more effective, e.g. most companies drug test. How about making it mandatory for anyone wanting to work to pass a stringent drug test? It would certainly cost less than what we're spending now. If doing drugs makes you unemployable I'm sure it would curtail the problem. This is just a suggestion that I haven't really thought through but it doesn't seem that difficult. I also think that better education for our youth about drugs would help but that's another thing.

I am not giving up my civil rights for anything, but especially for some false hope that somebody I don't know is altering their mood with chemicals. It just doesn't bother me that such an event happens in the world, and I don't know why it would bother anyone else, either.

[hblask 1]

Cool, so you have no problem lowering the fee to $200 and letting 20 million people from all over the globe come here, lower the standard of living, create an education nightmare, raise our taxes to 80% to pay for the welfare, let alone being inconvienenced at every business you turn too since many won't speak English. And you was worried about your son being inconvienced by cops asking for papers? You really don't see any problems with this?

Wow, so many false stereotypes packed into so few words....Immigrants don't lower the standard of living, they raise it, by creating products that Americans want.The only "education nightmare" that is created is because they are not allowed to join the system and pay their share of school taxes.Immigrants have *lower* rates of welfare usage than native born citizens.It doesn't bother me that there are people in this country who speak Spanish. I still don't see why this is a problem for anyone.

As much as I love and respect your altruism on this, believing that people are inherantly good, we know all too well they aren't. 30% of Arizona's population is there illegally, 500,000 people. You don't think that's a problem in any way?

I think that keeping people who want to work and contribute out of the system is a problem, yes. I think that letting them add to our standard of living is a Very Good Thing. It's not really altruistic to be glad that people are creating inexpensive products that I can enjoy, all the while creating more jobs and a higher standard of living.Does that bother you? Would you prefer we were more like Mexico?