Linsay Lohan Going To Jail

[Sweet 0]

90 (!) days in the slammer. Just curious what you americans think about this...

[Jeepster80125 0]

90 (!) days in the slammer. Just curious what you americans think about this...

The last time she was in jail, she was there for 84 minutes.It's a non-issue, unless you are looking to get into some sort of discussion on our current police/court/jail system.

[Balloon guy 158]

It was a victimless crime, yet we are going to fill our jails.When are they going to legalize alcohol and stop this insane war on drunks?

[hblask 1]

The last time she was in jail, she was there for 84 minutes.It's a non-issue, unless you are looking to get into some sort of discussion on our current police/court/jail system.

I think he was just hoping for pictures of LL.

[Jeepster80125 0]

It was a victimless crime, yet we are going to fill our jails.When are they going to legalize alcohol and stop this insane war on drunks?

Uh, people drinking and driving isn't a victimless crime. Is that what you're implying here? I don't think she was charged with driving under the influence of the coke she had, just the alcohol, a legal drug. So you attempting to tie this DUI case to the insane war on drugs is pretty silly.Would you like to clarify what you are saying, or move along to the religion forum so you can troll greatestiam?

[Balloon guy 158]

She is not going to jail for drunk driving.She is going to jail for not going to AA meetingsAnd unless you actually hit someone with your car, it is a victimless crime to drive drunk. the standard has already been set.Doing drugs is supposedly a victimless crime because the actual act is purely on you, the impact on your family and your community are negated in order to make this assumption. Therefore I am negating the effects of drunk driving as long as you don't hit anything. And most of the time drunk drivers don't hit anything.

[Jeepster80125 0]

She is not going to jail for drunk driving.She is going to jail for not going to AA meetingsAnd unless you actually hit someone with your car, it is a victimless crime to drive drunk. the standard has already been set.Doing drugs is supposedly a victimless crime because the actual act is purely on you, the impact on your family and your community are negated in order to make this assumption. Therefore I am negating the effects of drunk driving as long as you don't hit anything. And most of the time drunk drivers don't hit anything.

No. It's always illegal to drive under the influence, having an impact with another vehicle or piece of property doesn't really have anything to do with it being victimless or not. The crime is the act of driving under the influence, not whether or not there is an accident with resulting damage.Until you can prove your argument that drunken driving is a victimless crime, then your argument doesn't hold any water.'Doing drugs' is a victimless crime until people form addictions and break laws at that point, neglect, theft, etc. Usually, those cases of neglect, theft or whatever other crime you are attributing to drug use are already breaking the law, so making the act of consuming the drug illegal is stupid, since the act you are blaming the drug on is illegal already.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

She is not going to jail for drunk driving.She is going to jail for not going to AA meetingsAnd unless you actually hit someone with your car, it is a victimless crime to drive drunk. the standard has already been set.Doing drugs is supposedly a victimless crime because the actual act is purely on you, the impact on your family and your community are negated in order to make this assumption. Therefore I am negating the effects of drunk driving as long as you don't hit anything. And most of the time drunk drivers don't hit anything.

[Balloon guy 158]

Less is more

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Uh, people drinking and driving isn't a victimless crime. Is that what you're implying here? I don't think she was charged with driving under the influence of the coke she had, just the alcohol, a legal drug. So you attempting to tie this DUI case to the insane war on drugs is pretty silly.Would you like to clarify what you are saying, or move along to the religion forum so you can troll greatestiam?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/ent...#m_en_gb0432110

[Balloon guy 158]

or move along to the religion forum so you can troll greatestiam?

And for the record, that guy is very crazy.Like "Hey let's mock him, wait this guy is serious, I think he may grab a rifle and head up to the clock tower, you know what? Let's leave him alone' crazyso I'll let vb have him

[Jeepster80125 0]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/ent...#m_en_gb0432110

Uh, thanks? I was already aware that this is FriendlyTrollBG, not this-is-actually-what-i-think BG.I'm not sure what you are saying here, though.He doesn't agree that small scale, recreational or medicinal drug use is a victimless crime, which people like myself and henry believe. I have lots of problems with the war on drugs as well, and BG is against legalizing or decriminalizing any drugs, even minor ones like pot. I think his position is that as soon as we make marijuana legal, then coke and heroin will be next. I think he's trying to correlate young people breaking the rules as a reason to keep drugs illegal. But that's a stretch and FriendlyTrollBG never actually articulates anything he says. It's like he reads rush's talking point or something. It's also easy to dance around an issue when you refuse to actually take a position. I'm not even sure you read this far, but I was just attributing my back and forth with BG in this thread, to our ongoing different attitudes /back and forth in other threads regarding the war on drugs, medical marijuana, and decriminalization of marijuana, especially for medical purposes.

[Balloon guy 158]

This thread was destined to die, because no one cares and Lindsey.I saved it.Jeep killed it

[JoeyJoJo 18]

This thread was destined to die, because no one cares and Lindsey.I saved it.Jeep killed it

I'd say he raped it, killed it, then raped it again.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Less is more

[KosinTrouble 0]

I cant wait till the judge finds out about her painting her nails along with "F*ck U" on the left middle finger... Probably not the smartest thing to put on the nails in a court room with tons of photographers around!Kosin Trouble

[AmScray 355]

90 (!) days in the slammer. Just curious what you americans think about this...

Are you not from America?If not, ask yourself why people from overseas care about Lindsey Lohan?I am in favor of this, but not because of some broader theorem of criminal justice. My hope is that she gets violated by angry prison dykes and we get to read all the juicy details on TMZ. That's the only reason I want to see her locked up... For my own sexually puerile amusement. Out there in the real world, it's pretty unlikely that this would ever happen to her, but in there, it's at least *possible* which would be awesome.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Are you not from America?If not, ask yourself why people from overseas care about Lindsey Lohan?

Why do american care about her?

[serge 904]

Lindsay is a good girl..Very nice to hang out with.Also a pretty good actress..Dont believe all the stuff you read in the tabloids..She is very down to earth.

[BaseJester 1]

She is not going to jail for drunk driving.She is going to jail for not going to AA meetingsAnd unless you actually hit someone with your car, it is a victimless crime to drive drunk. the standard has already been set.Doing drugs is supposedly a victimless crime because the actual act is purely on you, the impact on your family and your community are negated in order to make this assumption. Therefore I am negating the effects of drunk driving as long as you don't hit anything. And most of the time drunk drivers don't hit anything.

I infer that you are making this argument.

1. Driving drunk has a very large cost to society on average.
2. Doing drugs at home is like driving drunk, because both have the potential for harming society with some low probability but very high cost.
3. Therefore, doing drugs at home should be illegal.

However, driving drunk is to drinking at home as driving under the influence of others drugs is to doing other drugs at home. It's illegal (at least here in Indiana) to drive under the influence of other drugs as well.

An operator of a motor vehicle whose alcohol concentration is greater than or equal to .08 grams and less than .15 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath commits a Class C Misdemeanor. Driving with any schedule I or II substance as defined by IC 25-48-2 (such as marijuana, methamphetamine or cocaine) or its metabolite in his/her body commits a Class C Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in prison and up to a $500 fine. (IC 9-30-5-1)

I do accept your argument in a very general way. (I.e., to say the drug use is an absolutely personal matter ignores the compromises that law is already making with respect to behaviors that are risky.) However, I think alcohol gets a special place in your mind because it was your favorite drug, as opposed to other ones that bad people take.

[colonel Feathers 5]

She is not going to jail for drunk driving.She is going to jail for not going to AA meetingsAnd unless you actually hit someone with your car, it is a victimless crime to drive drunk. the standard has already been set.Doing drugs is supposedly a victimless crime because the actual act is purely on you, the impact on your family and your community are negated in order to make this assumption. Therefore I am negating the effects of drunk driving as long as you don't hit anything. And most of the time drunk drivers don't hit anything.

So shooting randomly from a roof is a victimless crime if noone is hit?

[colonel Feathers 5]

Lindsay is a good girl..Very nice to hang out with.Also a pretty good actress..Dont believe all the stuff you read in the tabloids..She is very down to earth.

I believe you know her personally , I really do.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

So shooting randomly from a roof is a victimless crime if no one is hit?

You realize you're enforcing BG's point, not arguing against it, right?

[Balloon guy 158]

I infer that you are making this argument.

1. Driving drunk has a very large cost to society on average.
2. Doing drugs at home is like driving drunk, because both have the potential for harming society with some low probability but very high cost.
3. Therefore, doing drugs at home should be illegal.

However, driving drunk is to drinking at home as driving under the influence of others drugs is to doing other drugs at home. It's illegal (at least here in Indiana) to drive under the influence of other drugs as well.I do accept your argument in a very general way. (I.e., to say the drug use is an absolutely personal matter ignores the compromises that law is already making with respect to behaviors that are risky.)

I am really shocked that you could be this smart, and make this inference at the same time. You get the point, but then you try to infer that I am making the lamest possible conclusion from the point. Comparing drunk drivers with people who stay home and smoke pot is equally ridiculous as someone comparing a person who has a beer on his porch with a guy smoking crack while driving a school bus. How about you say that the same people that will drive drunk, will also drive stoned? The same people that will spend every spare penny their wife earns on beer, will spend it also on crack. The kids who steal beer from their dad's fridge will also steal pot from their dad's cigar box.

However, I think alcohol gets a special place in your mind because it was your favorite drug, as opposed to other ones that bad people take.

Not even close to my favorite drug. Acid, Hash, pot, cocaine, vodka. Much closer to the order. And surprisingly very close to the exact list of my last night getting loaded. I didn't have any coke that night

[Balloon guy 158]

You realize you're enforcing BG's point, not arguing against it, right?

Who's the bigger fool?Him for missing the point?Or you for thinking I have one?