Border agent hit, killed by suspect's car

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Yeah, only the rich kids could afford to do coke. The rest of us had to make do with weed.

[HAL 9000 96]

Legalize it. Typical argument my college coleagues would have while smoking pot

Well, they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke. Hence, not much notice is given to the more privileged that can afford their drug habits. And yeah... they can smoke more!

Not all college kids are born with a silver spoon. Some actually work hard to afford the education with very little funds to spare and/or incur debt to finance their education.

When I state ALL college kids are born into wealth, then we'll be on the same page. At this time we can equate college with having funds (compared to those that lack funds to obtain their kicks, being the logic of my argument), specially if the funds come from work and/or loans. Nevertheless, college in the USA is usually subsidized by loans, and the application of loan funds is well... sometimes used beyond tuition and fees.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its also not unknown for kids to work part-time jobs while in college to top-up their income and fund a social life.

[natty bumppo 297]

Legalize it. Typical argument my college coleagues would have while smoking pot

Well, they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke. Hence, not much notice is given to the more privileged that can afford their drug habits. And yeah... they can smoke more!

Not all college kids are born with a silver spoon. Some actually work hard to afford the education with very little funds to spare and/or incur debt to finance their education.

When I state ALL college kids are born into wealth, then we'll be on the same page. At this time we can equate college with having funds (compared to those that lack funds to obtain their kicks, being the logic of my argument), specially if the funds come from work and/or loans. Nevertheless, college in the USA is usually subsidized by loans, and the application of loan funds is well... sometimes used beyond tuition and fees.

Your reply to Nessa's comment was a little ... well misleading in that the reply dealt with "they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke ..."

Words just needed the clarification. No harm

[HAL 9000 96]

Legalize it. Typical argument my college coleagues would have while smoking pot

Well, they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke. Hence, not much notice is given to the more privileged that can afford their drug habits. And yeah... they can smoke more!

Not all college kids are born with a silver spoon. Some actually work hard to afford the education with very little funds to spare and/or incur debt to finance their education.

When I state ALL college kids are born into wealth, then we'll be on the same page. At this time we can equate college with having funds (compared to those that lack funds to obtain their kicks, being the logic of my argument), specially if the funds come from work and/or loans. Nevertheless, college in the USA is usually subsidized by loans, and the application of loan funds is well... sometimes used beyond tuition and fees.

Your reply to Nessa's comment was a little ... well misleading in that the reply dealt with "they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke ..."

Words just needed the clarification. No harm

None intended The logic was more aimed at noting that many drug-abusing college kids come from a background of wealth, having already acquired their habits before their collegiate years. Of course, there are exceptions. Many of the crackheads robbing ABCs are not precisely college kids.

Then again, when comprehension is not complete, clarification is but a PM or a post request away.

Edited January 22, 2008 by maviwaro

[natty bumppo 297]

Legalize it. Typical argument my college coleagues would have while smoking pot

Well, they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke. Hence, not much notice is given to the more privileged that can afford their drug habits. And yeah... they can smoke more!

Not all college kids are born with a silver spoon. Some actually work hard to afford the education with very little funds to spare and/or incur debt to finance their education.

When I state ALL college kids are born into wealth, then we'll be on the same page. At this time we can equate college with having funds (compared to those that lack funds to obtain their kicks, being the logic of my argument), specially if the funds come from work and/or loans. Nevertheless, college in the USA is usually subsidized by loans, and the application of loan funds is well... sometimes used beyond tuition and fees.

Your reply to Nessa's comment was a little ... well misleading in that the reply dealt with "they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke ..."

Words just needed the clarification. No harm

None intended The logic was more aimed at noting that many drug-abusing college kids come from a background of wealth, having already acquired their habits before their collegiate years. Of course, there are exceptions. Many of the crackheads robbing ABCs are not precisely college kids.

Then again, when comprehension is not complete, clarification is but a PM or a post request away.

I've seen college kids be a lot more creative than robbing an ABC (package store) to secure funds. From my experience the "chemists" came from a very diverse and mixed background .... but there, again my college days were more than 5 years ago.

[garya505 2]

The wall socket argument is also facile. I am not suggesting we condone and support addictive behaviour, I am suggesting we control the manufacture, distribution and sale of these substances with appropriate warnings and support groups for addicts. We need to drive the illegal traffickers out of business because that's where the majority of criminal behaviour related to drug use stems from.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm tired of all this tolerance #######.

We're a sick country. Drug use is a disease. We need to kill it.

How might we achieve this?

Certainly not by tolerance, which will only encourage more drug use.

That's not really answering the question. Haven't the authorities been trying to stamp this thing out for many years now? Isn't it reasonable to ask why it doesn't appear to be working?

It hasn't worked because the so-called War on Drugs is a half-azzed effort and too tolerant. Put the users in jail and execute the dealers, then you'll see some results.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, there would be results, although I very much doubt they would be the ones you would be expecting.

[HAL 9000 96]

Legalize it. Typical argument my college coleagues would have while smoking pot

Well, they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke. Hence, not much notice is given to the more privileged that can afford their drug habits. And yeah... they can smoke more!

Not all college kids are born with a silver spoon. Some actually work hard to afford the education with very little funds to spare and/or incur debt to finance their education.

When I state ALL college kids are born into wealth, then we'll be on the same page. At this time we can equate college with having funds (compared to those that lack funds to obtain their kicks, being the logic of my argument), specially if the funds come from work and/or loans. Nevertheless, college in the USA is usually subsidized by loans, and the application of loan funds is well... sometimes used beyond tuition and fees.

Your reply to Nessa's comment was a little ... well misleading in that the reply dealt with "they probably did not have to worry about getting the cash to smoke ..."

Words just needed the clarification. No harm

None intended The logic was more aimed at noting that many drug-abusing college kids come from a background of wealth, having already acquired their habits before their collegiate years. Of course, there are exceptions. Many of the crackheads robbing ABCs are not precisely college kids.

Then again, when comprehension is not complete, clarification is but a PM or a post request away.

I've seen college kids be a lot more creative than robbing an ABC (package store) to secure funds. From my experience the "chemists" came from a very diverse and mixed background .... but there, again my college days were more than 5 years ago.

Same here... even though 5 years and today there's not that much more difference other than the cocktail drug mixes that are available.

ABC in Florida and other Southern States = liquor store chain. And like I said, its not the college kids doing the robbing. More like cruising the hood.

[JASONandDAA 0]

I feel sorry for the guy's family...I hope he didn't have any kids...they must all be heart-broken

[garya505 2]

Heath Ledger dies at age 28

Heath Ledger dead

[SMOKE 1,426]

WHO?

[Fandango 1,439]

I agree with PH...legalize the drugs...hit the dealers in their pockets.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The wall socket argument is also facile. I am not suggesting we condone and support addictive behaviour, I am suggesting we control the manufacture, distribution and sale of these substances with appropriate warnings and support groups for addicts. We need to drive the illegal traffickers out of business because that's where the majority of criminal behaviour related to drug use stems from.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm tired of all this tolerance #######.

We're a sick country. Drug use is a disease. We need to kill it.

How might we achieve this?

Certainly not by tolerance, which will only encourage more drug use.

That's not really answering the question. Haven't the authorities been trying to stamp this thing out for many years now? Isn't it reasonable to ask why it doesn't appear to be working?

It hasn't worked because the so-called War on Drugs is a half-azzed effort and too tolerant. Put the users in jail and execute the dealers, then you'll see some results.

Hmmm... I can see just a few problems with that approach.

Still... I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that putting drug users in jail doesn't get them off the drugs (i.e. solve the problem). You don't get people off alcohol or cigarettes by banging them up in prison - why should this be any different.

More than that - we're looking at record prison populations as it is. People say that prison in the US is a soft option... from what I've heard that isn't the case, and there's no justifiable reason for putting say a person (for example, a middle class college kid with no criminal history) who is caught using a recreational drug (i.e. a trivial offence) into a violent institution that's little more than an organised ghetto for racist gangs.

[garya505 2]

The wall socket argument is also facile. I am not suggesting we condone and support addictive behaviour, I am suggesting we control the manufacture, distribution and sale of these substances with appropriate warnings and support groups for addicts. We need to drive the illegal traffickers out of business because that's where the majority of criminal behaviour related to drug use stems from.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm tired of all this tolerance #######.

We're a sick country. Drug use is a disease. We need to kill it.

How might we achieve this?

Certainly not by tolerance, which will only encourage more drug use.

That's not really answering the question. Haven't the authorities been trying to stamp this thing out for many years now? Isn't it reasonable to ask why it doesn't appear to be working?

It hasn't worked because the so-called War on Drugs is a half-azzed effort and too tolerant. Put the users in jail and execute the dealers, then you'll see some results.

Hmmm... I can see just a few problems with that approach.

Still... I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that putting drug users in jail doesn't get them off the drugs (i.e. solve the problem). You don't get people off alcohol or cigarettes by banging them up in prison - why should this be any different.

More than that - we're looking at record prison populations as it is. People say that prison in the US is a soft option... from what I've heard that isn't the case, and there's no justifiable reason for putting say a person (for example, a middle class college kid with no criminal history) who is caught using a recreational drug (i.e. a trivial offence) into a violent institution that's little more than an organised ghetto for racist gangs.

Yeah, "recreational drug" sounds so nice, almost like it's a good thing.