LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[BigMcK]

Lyrics say so much.

If your point is that drugs can be bad for people I don't see anyone arguing that.

Yeah, not sure the point there BMK. Are you suggesting that Lynott would have died quicker if drugs were legal?
People will OD on drugs whethor they are legal or not. It's a destructive behavior that has little to do with legality.

By posting those, more to draw attention to the sad state of what addiction to a powerful narcotic brings about. In the last public performance his voice was gone, he could no longer remember words, while at that same time being in denial that he was addicted.

Keeping narcotics hold-up in a closet and acting like they are not available and hoping they go away is not my stance on the issue. They are here; we, Americans, have done a crappy job dealing with them. Do people here think society is ready to deal with the destructive nature caused by addiction? I do not, and personally see no value in bringing such an addictive influence into the mainstream and introducing it to a wider base of potential users. Experiment with it once just to see what it's all about and hope you can resist a second, third, fourth,... time.

Also, my feelings are for hard narcotics, not weed.

It's a debate that needs to happen without political divide. Money will be made either through legal or illegal channels. Deaths will occur, success from rehabilitation will be discovered, and awareness to how powerfully addictive narcotics are will (hopefully) be raised. New users will be found to replace those are no longer using. Just my opinion.

[BigMcK]

I'll put you down for a "yes" on the nanny state referendum.
No wonder you live in California.

Live here for the beach and weather.

(can't afford what a nanny charges out here)

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

You guys are smoking crack if you don't think legalization would increase usage beyond reason. The effects on the poor and under privileged would devastating. The smoking and alcohol abuse is rampant already. If smoking was illegal a lot less people would do it. Period. This sexy image that it wouldn't be rampant is bs, just look at smoking that kills how many per year? Look at how easy it is to market without real marketing.

I look forward to the days of some hot 20 year old college girl approaching me at a bar in daisy dukes and a Smiths Pure Meth cut off tank top on, flirting with and offering me a few dollars worth of Smiths Pure Meth for free as long as she can take a picture of me, her, and my new Smiths Pure Meth for the Facebook page.

The amount of money on the line, the lobbying, the under ground marketing, the addiction, the health care money in the long run. In this case then do we just make all prescription drugs available? Why not? Hook a brother up with some oxy? Some Xanax in my palm like mother effing m&m's. What's the difference?

Should we discriminate against drugs just because they have some solid benefit? Are they not better than just straight up meth?

[ExPatriatePen]

You guys are smoking crack if you don't think legalization would increase usage beyond reason. The effects on the poor and under privileged would devastating. The smoking and alcohol abuse is rampant already. If smoking was illegal a lot less people would do it. Period. This sexy image that it wouldn't be rampant is bs, just look at smoking that kills how many per year? Look at how easy it is to market without real marketing.

Is that how it worked when prohibition was repealed?

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

You guys are smoking crack if you don't think legalization would increase usage beyond reason. The effects on the poor and under privileged would devastating. The smoking and alcohol abuse is rampant already. If smoking was illegal a lot less people would do it. Period. This sexy image that it wouldn't be rampant is bs, just look at smoking that kills how many per year? Look at how easy it is to market without real marketing.

Is that how it worked when prohibition was repealed?

No. Because while alcohol can be dangerous and is addictive to some/at some points there is an ocean of difference between miller lite and crack, meth or heroin. They are not even comparable. In fact shouldn't be brought into the same discussion. The amount of usage of alcohol compared to addictive or destructive behavior is not nearly the same as addictive illegal drugs.

[ExPatriatePen]

No. Because while alcohol can be dangerous and is addictive to some/at some points there is an ocean of difference between miller lite and crack, meth or heroin. They are not even comparable. In fact shouldn't be brought into the same discussion. The amount of usage of alcohol compared to addictive or destructive behavior is not nearly the same as addictive illegal drugs.

Come on B&DS... you're comparing Miller Lite to Crack Meth and Herion?

You think that's a fair comparison (As opposed to Beer vs. Pot and Illegal Moonshine stills vs. Opiates for instance)

You're taking the lighest alcohol and comparing it to the worst drugs... and that's the story you're selling? OK

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

No. Because while alcohol can be dangerous and is addictive to some/at some points there is an ocean of difference between miller lite and crack, meth or heroin. They are not even comparable. In fact shouldn't be brought into the same discussion. The amount of usage of alcohol compared to addictive or destructive behavior is not nearly the same as addictive illegal drugs.

Come on B&DS... you're comparing Miller Lite to Crack Meth and Herion?

You think that's a fair comparison (As opposed to Beer vs. Pot and Illegal Moonshine stills vs. Opiates for instance)

You're taking the lighest alcohol and comparing it to the worst drugs... and that's the story you're selling? OK

I'm not selling anything, and i shoukd be clear i dont really care about pot. So what's the better solution compare vodka to the "lightest" drugs. How do you the decide which drugs to make legal? a few pills from rite aid? Ok? But throw in coke, crack, meth and heroin too and hope it doesn't catch on past the typical crackheads?

Nobody on here is arguing that point anyways, everyone is arguing the economic value (which is not as clean as simply the government getting money instead of drug dealers), or the fact that most people will not really do drugs if readily available.

Both points are not valid. Besides you originally compared the legalizing of alcohol to the legalizing of drugs, not me.

[npv708]

Quick non-legalization interlude question:

How does everyone feel about the Obama administration stance on hiring former lobbyists? (ie. lobbyists are not really welcome in appointed positions.)

Personally, I think it's a little unintelligent, since they are typically Subject matter experts on the field that the agency works in, but that's just my two cents.

[Gaucho]

I think there's a special circle in hell reserved exclusively for lobbyists.

I guess that doesn't answer your question, does it?

[Shyster]

Intrade shuts down all accounts of U.S. customers due to a complaint filed in federal court by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... print.html

According to the CFTC, Intrade is trading "futures and options" in violation of U.S. securities laws.

[Shyster]

How does everyone feel about the Obama administration stance on hiring former lobbyists? (ie. lobbyists are not really welcome in appointed positions.)

My understanding was that the Obama administration violated its we-don’t-hire-lobbyists promise practically within minutes of making it back in 2008. Has he made another promise along those lines?

[Gaucho]

300.000 protestors gathered in Tahir Square tonight.

[npv708]

How does everyone feel about the Obama administration stance on hiring former lobbyists? (ie. lobbyists are not really welcome in appointed positions.)

My understanding was that the Obama administration violated its we-don’t-hire-lobbyists promise practically within minutes of making it back in 2008. Has he made another promise along those lines?

Sort of. In 2008, he said he wouldn't appoint lobbyists to his administration. In the informationals he released, it said that he wouldn't hire lobbyists directly from their lobbying positions, ie. they would have to have at least one or two years of experience at a place outside of the lobbying industry to be eligible. So to be eligible, you'd have to have been removed from direct lobbying for a couple of years.

He's pretty much stuck to that philosophy and is basically planning to do it again from what I've heard.

[npv708]

I think there's a special circle in hell reserved exclusively for lobbyists.

I guess that doesn't answer your question, does it?

I just thought I would inject this into the discussion and note that not all lobbyists are equal. There's a large chunk of lobbyists that actually work for good causes and non-profits.

[Gaucho]

I was only half-serious, as only half the lobbyists are evil.

[npv708]

I was only half-serious, as only half the lobbyists are evil. :wink:

Know we just need to figure out which half I fall into...

[Shyster]

Sort of. In 2008, he said he wouldn't appoint lobbyists to his administration. In the informationals he released, it said that he wouldn't hire lobbyists directly from their lobbying positions, ie. they would have to have at least one or two years of experience at a place outside of the lobbying industry to be eligible. So to be eligible, you'd have to have been removed from direct lobbying for a couple of years.

He's pretty much stuck to that philosophy and is basically planning to do it again from what I've heard.

He has violated the "two year" rule on multiple occasions, though:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... lobbyists/

[Shyster]

I just thought I would inject this into the discussion and note that not all lobbyists are equal. There's a large chunk of lobbyists that actually work for good causes and non-profits.

I've personally written bills that (with minor revisions) were introduced in two states’ legislatures. One of the two bills is still pending; the other didn’t pass before the session ended. And I wrote those on behalf of big corporations.

[Gaucho]

I was only half-serious, as only half the lobbyists are evil.

Know we just need to figure out which half I fall into...

The non-evil half, no doubt.

Hey, didn't mean to offend.

[npv708]

I just thought I would inject this into the discussion and note that not all lobbyists are equal. There's a large chunk of lobbyists that actually work for good causes and non-profits.

I've personally written bills that (with minor revisions) were introduced in two states’ legislatures. One of the two bills is still pending; the other didn’t pass before the session ended. And I wrote those on behalf of big corporations.

The only thing worse than lobbyists are lawyers.

[npv708]

I was only half-serious, as only half the lobbyists are evil.

Know we just need to figure out which half I fall into...

The non-evil half, no doubt.

Hey, didn't mean to offend.

No offense taken. Just having some fun with you guys.

[ExPatriatePen]

I just thought I would inject this into the discussion and note that not all lobbyists are equal. There's a large chunk of lobbyists that actually work for good causes and non-profits.

I've personally written bills that (with minor revisions) were introduced in two states’ legislatures. One of the two bills is still pending; the other didn’t pass before the session ended. And I wrote those on behalf of big corporations.

Is this an argument *for* or *against* lobbyists being evil?

[ExPatriatePen]

300.000 protestors gathered in Tahir Square tonight.

May they all get through the experience safely and in good health.

[Gaucho]

300.000 protestors gathered in Tahir Square tonight.

May they all get through the experience safely and in good health.

Let's hope so. The Muslim Brotherhood called off a pro-Mursi rally, so I guess they're not completely insane.

[Gaucho]

France making a push to recognize Palestinian state:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20514194