Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/5/03 09:29 PM, luckoftheirish wrote: hmm i think you mean dr dumbass, masturbation is all some of us have

That's so sad...

What's worse is that so many people are so fucking stupid as to think this is a serious thread...LOL

This is sweet...LOL

DR A, I just noticed a nifty little side benefit of this thread...
It sorts out the real idiots pretty effectively, because anyone who read the original post and thought that the person who wrote it could be intelligent enough to write it the way it was, yet be stupid enough to actually believe it, has to be a complete and utter fucking moron.

I, for one, think that was the funniest thing I've ever read in here. Thanks for making my day.

By the way, everyone... the correct spelling is "whacking" not "waking"... "Waking" is what you do right before you get out of bed in the morning... Wait...either one of those could apply...

Matt

Look at all the dipshits crying about censorship when they should be trying to find ways to help thier children stay away from those attitudes to begin with.

Fuckin' people...always wanting to blame society for the way thier kids turn out. I've said it before...If you're worried about the affect society's going to have on your kids, don't let society raise your kids..

Looks like Memphis is a city full of realy shitty parents...

At 6/4/03 01:27 PM, antiqkk wrote:

At 6/4/03 01:03 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: Is cannibalism morally wrong? Tribes used to do it all the time, indians, jungle cultures...then "civilized" man came around, and said it was wrong. Where do you stand on this? Tell me why it is wrong and why or why you are for this.

Well, in the world as we know it today cannibalism is certainly morally wrong, due to the fact that human life has become something almost sacred.

I think George Carlin said it best in one of his routines that said something to the effect that "...the sanctity of life is some bullshit invented by someone scared of death..."

George Carlin's got some pretty brilliant things to say about religion and shit like this. I think if people could get past the packaging of his product, he might have made a pretty good president. LOL

but then again, I voted for Jesse Ventura, so what the hell do I know??

Actually, though, I guess if people aren't killing other people for the purpose of eating them, I see nothing wrong with it. Definitely not my cup of tea, but who am I to tell a society that's been around for thousands of years that they're wrong?

The whole point I was trying to make was that the issue shouldn't be what's worse for the offender, but what's better for society. In many cases, death WOULD be better than life imprisonment, but who the hell cares? Once he's dead, he's gone, and his rights will no longer be violated, and more importantly, he will violate the rights of no one else, including all of us suckers who are currently paying the way for these shitheads. Kill the bastards, save our money, and move on to the next asshole that wants to take something that ain't his.
This whole fuckin' debate is about the wrong party involved. It shouldn't have EVER been about the offender at all, but about the rest of society. The prisoner gives up his rights as soon as he takes them from someone else. Fuck him and whatever he wants or doesn't want. FORGET ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS and let's figure out what to do with him that's going to have the least negative affect on the rest of the law abiding citizens of our society. If he raped and/or killed someone, kill him and be done...MOVE ON...pretty fuckin' simple...

I can't stand to listen to a bunch of bleeding heart babies tell me about the moral ramifications of capital punishment. 9 times out of 10, this is coming from someone who's never lost a loved one to violent crime or hasn't been around long enough to watch the tax dollars they busted thier asses to make get used to provide a life for a prisoner that causes him absolutely no worries. It's easy to be morally superior when you've got nothing to lose.

Granted, a person's freedom is taken away whe they get tossed in the klink, but what if freedom isn't something they realy value? What if that person grew up and moved out of thier house before they were ready to really grow up, and still can't function without a mother? Now WE'RE thier mother, and we're supposed to be the ones punishing them.

I have to think that the original idea behind locking up criminals had nothing to do with taking away thier liberty and everything to do with simply removing them from the society that they offended.

The big problem with this whole debate is the fact that it's all about the prisoner. What the hell happened to the rest of society? That should be the whole point of incarceration or capital punishment. The most important question should be about how society is going to be affected by either, the person spending thier life in prison, or recieving capital punishment. It should have nothing at all to do with the rights of any person who took it upon himself to forcably take away the rights of someone else. They should be stripped of al thier rights and be at the mercy of the very society that they offended. Instead, they're at the mercy of a bunch of people who have nothing better to do with thier time but cry about the civil rights of people they don't know, and probably wouldn't like if they did.

Keeping people imprisoned for life is a waste of money, period. It costs somewhere in the nieghborhood of 50-75k a year to keep one person in jail for a year. That means ALL the tax revenue from at least 2 average people goes toward keeping one person locked up. Let's look at all the lifers in prison right now. Kill them and double that number, and now we have that many more effective taxpayers in our society, which will make the lives better for all of us outside of jail who deserve to have our lives made better, instead of buying murderers, rapists, and thieves cable TV and pool tables.

OK, Funk...wait a minute...I copied and replied to a post I could swear was yours...Just looked again and saw that it was from antikk (sp?)... Looks like I slapped the wrong person upside the hayd. Sorry Funk... I think maybe you copied and I copied your copy...or some shit like that..

::::banging head against the deck until forgiven::::

AHA!!!! So it IS possible to delete and/or edit a post... I know what I saw, Funk..you can't pull one over on me that easily... This ain't Jimsween you're dealing with here...LOL

I like a good mushroom and swiss burger from time to time. I also know and love people who are vegetarians. They don't bitch at me for eating a burger and I don't tie them down and try to force it down thier throat. People that try to shove thier moral superiority down my throat don't even warrant the priveledge of my listening to them, as far as I'm concerned, and all I've got to say is: shove it up your ass!

At 6/3/03 10:20 AM, antiqkk wrote:

At 6/3/03 10:14 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: ..... I am not going to judge her, not knowing what went on in her head, but I think she should be let off this once with a warning and maybe a minor fine, to teach those who will be tempted to repeat her actions in the future.

:::::slappin Funk upside his hayd::::::
The only thing those tempted to repeat her actions would be taught by giving her a warning and a minor fine is that they will get off WITH A WARNING AND A MINOR FINE!!!

It's OK, Funk..we all have a brainfart once in a while...hehe

I say both of them should be punished equally for this. Her for inviting him and setting the stage for the impending disaster that she HAD to know was coming (otherwise, why did she have the restraining order to begin with?) and him for breaking the restraining order. A fine that they'll each REALLY feel, some recurrent (so they won't soon forget) community service at some kid's functions (but not at the same time...hehe...), and a really strict probation. Jail time's out...there's at least one kid that'll suffer irreparably if they're taken from thier parents while they go to jail.

Paople can be so fuckin' stupid...and there's not a thing stopping them from having kids...that's the real crime...LOL

Very interesting theory, Funk... Actually one of the better ones I've seen/heard/read.

Here's what I believe: No, we're not alone in the universe, it's mathematically all but impossible. That's about as much energy as I care to put toward this kind of subject, though. It seems to me to be a vast waste of thought to spend any reasonable amount of time theorizing on anything that can never be proven. I'd rather spend my time thinking of things that make me smile, like race cars, pasta, and perfect boobs.

Hell, I kinda like things the way they are. Let everyone speak thier mind right here in this thread and really see everyone's true colors.

I mean, really...if not for this thread, I'd still think Jimsween was a mature and reasonable adult, but by virtue of what he's written here, I now know he's... ummm... something else...

I had a hard enough time joining a group at all, considering how the wporld's view of everyone in the group hinges on it's lowest common denominator, but the DAG sounded like something I wanted to be a part of because of the fact that it's mission was said to be one of arguing the side of things that most others are afraid to. To become a part of something like the PC that, to me, reeks of an organization of people just looking to be a part of something for the sake of being a part of something, is not what I came here to do.

I come here to engage in thought provoking debate and read about people's views on some pretty hot topics, not to become part of some kind of wanna-be street gang for anti-social agoraphobes. Count mine as a "no" vote.

...just went to update my profile and the birthday was wrong... I fixed it and the next window said "ERROR it's unlikely that you're that old. Go back and try again."

Apparently I'm noo old for newgrounds..LOL

....I can't believe I'm the first person to mention masturbating...

LOL

I'd have sex with my wife til she couldn't any more, then masturbate til I couldn't anymore, then take my wife and kids, find the biggest rollercoaster I could find, try to ride it without the safety bar on, and hope I died when I hit the ground, cuz I don't wanna spend my last hours on earth in pain...

I just thought of a better idea...

Anyone who wants to wear a veil in thier driver's license photo can do so, as long as they agree to having a number tattooed to thier forehead that's registered with the DMV.

Problem solved..

The law in this country states that anyone who wants a driver's license has to have thier picture on it. There's a reason for that. If you're pulled over and have a picture on your license that's wearing a mask, that picture could be of anyone, and anyone could use that license. Someone earlier said that driving in America is a privelege and not a right. That's true, and there are certain things one has to do to gain that privelege, which are designed to keep everyone else safe. One of those things is to have your picture on your driver's license, so we can actually see if the person using the license is actually the person who qualified to get the license.

We are not a Muslim country, we are not a Christian country, we are not any kind of religious country. We are a country that believes in the law as something that should govern all, regardless of anyone's religious beliefs.

Let's ask ourselves this: Say someone came in your house as an invited guest and had a pleasant dinner with you, and immediately afterward, shit in your dishwasher saying it was a religious practice. Would you invite them over again? No, because I think I can safely assume that there's no one in this country or the world that's got house rules that include allowing visitors to shit in thier dishwasher. Would any of us change that rule? No, we'd just not ask those people over again, because this practice is unacceptable in our household.

Should we allow people to wear masks in thier driver's license photos? No, because this practice is unacceptable in our society.

Muslim women aren't allowed to drive in the countries that are governed by that religion, because that religion doesn't allow it. Why then, is it OK for them to disregard the part of thier religious doctrine that says they can't drive, but stand firm on the part that asks them to wear a veil at all times.

We are the only country in the world that tries to please everyone, and it's because someone twisted the words of our founding fathers. The constitution guarantees everyone "the pursuit of happiness". Nowhere does it say that it's the responsibility of our society to guarantee that happiness. Besides, this quest to guarantee happiness for everyone with some special little circumstance is doing nothing but pissing off the rest of us who have to suffer through the consequences.

I got no problem at all with people coming to live here from different countries, but don't try to make this country into yours. We like it the way it is, and if you don't, you're welcome to leave.

Guess I should add that my last post was directed at jimsween...didn't make myself clear there...must be because I'm stupid...wish I had a 13 year old as smart as jimsween to tell me how to get through my days...damn, his parents must be the luckiest people on the block...

OK, great...<rolling eyes>

1. You were the first to mention anything about being fat and ugly. Makes me wonder how close to the mark that might be. If you'll notice my post, all I said was that you might not want to be the guy every woman wants and the guy every guy wants to be. I also said at the end "I could be wrong".

2. I didn't post anything to sound intelligent. If anything I post sounds intelligent, that's just a by-product of the simple fact that...well...I'm intelligent.

3. If you are going to tell me all about how I "suck at judging people", you might want to come a little better informed. The fact that I've not posted much in your little forum here and you've posted umpteen billion has absolutely nothing at all to do with how smart either of us are. Refer to my next point to become better informed.

4. Someone who's 13 who's biggest financial crisis was how he was going to angle his Momma for his next Playstation game is telling me how stupid I am and that I should get a job. This, my young friend, is quite hilarious, and goes only to further illustrate your ignorance. Let me enlighten you.

As I said earlier, I'm 38 years old, have been married for 18 years, have 2 kids who are 16 and 12, have owned my own home for 15 years, and had been self-employed for a little over 20 years until this past April, when I quit working in favor of going back to college. I've successfully run not one, but 2 businesses for the last 13 years; my construction business (again, for over 20), and my motorsports operation. If you don't think a motorsports operation is a business, you clearly have no idea what's involved. Maybe I'll tell you about that sometime when I've got a few hours with nothing to do. Nevermind, that's not about to happen. I've got plenty to do.

You're right on one point though. I don't have a "job" as many would describe one. Why? I don't need one right now. I've spent the last 20 years putting myself into a position finacially that would allow me to quit working for the time it took me to go to school and get a degree. Ask your Momma how much money she'd need to sock away to take 18 months off work and still be able to buy you everything you've become accustomed to, on top of paying for going to school during that time. My kids' lifestyles have actually gotten better since I started school. My 12 year old's going on 2 trips this summer, and my 16 year old started driving my race car for me this spring, every Friday and Saturday night. Think your mommy or daddy could quit working and drop 15k to buy you a race car? Think they WOULD even if they could? If you were my kid, you'd be lucky to leave your bedroom with that smartass attitude.

I need to get some hobbies, huh? This coming from someone who's got nothing better to do with his time than post 938 times on an internet forum by the time he's 13...

The fact that I couldn't figure out that I can't gain levels (again, I'm at a loss for how the number of cartoons I watch can have anything to do with my standing in a forum, or even the number of posts I've made) from posting has nothing to do with intelligence or common sense. It has everything to do with the fact that I'm fairly new here, and no one sent me an instruction manual for "How to work the NG BBS". Did you get one? Didn't think so. I also haven't got the time or the inclination to sit and wait for my dial-up at home or my hogged bandwidth connection at school to show me any FAQ pages, so I learn on the fly. Probably the same way you and 90% of the rest of the people in here did.

You remarked about the fact that you "...don't know how many times a dumb person said this...", and questioned it's originality. Number one, if that many people have said it to you, maybe they're not so dumb, and you might want to look elsewhere for the dumb person in that instance. And number two, I wasn't trying to be "original" as you so deftly informed me I shouldn't. I was simply stating something I know to be true from having been in the real world since before the best part of you dripped past your momma's poopchute.

One final thought...I find it hard to understand how a kid can think they're so much smarter than someone who's 15 years older than they are, and can also think they're twice as smart as someone only one year younger. That never made a lot of sense to me, even when I was 13.

My dad can beat up your dad...

Don't hold your breath waiting FUNK... I'm 38 and am still yet to learn my limitations. Hell, I still have to feed my ego driving circles in the mud in a glorified go-kart.

I know all about the sharp rocks on the downhill side if that hill too, but once you get good at stepping around them life becomes a lot more fun again. I wouldn't go back to being 13, 17, or even 21 for a million bucks. I'm having more fun right now than I ever have in my whole life before.

It takes a while to realize that the world couldn't give half a shit what any one of us thinks, and it takes a while more to really come to terms with that idea. Once you do, though, and really start to believe that you don't have to care what the rest of the world thinks either, life becomes a lot less complicated. It's only then that we can realize the real value of our families and true friends, and start to enjoy them for who and what they are in our lives.

With this in mind, don't take anything I say seriously, people, because I know you don't give a shit, and now you know I don't give a shit either. Let's just have some fun.

Hey, El_foka...Yer ugly and your Momma dresses you funny...LOL LOL LOL

one more thing... Get used to the lollipop... If I gotta download and watch 5 movies a day to get something else, I'm gonna have this for a while. I hardly have time to even look in here and write once in a while, let alone watch flashes. I'm still at a loss as to how one's seniority in a political discussion forum has anything to do with how many cartoons they watch, anyway; but that's just me...

...and as for going off on jimsween... I can't really rip a kid for being 13, can I? I thought I knew everything when I was 13, and I think everyone else did too.

He'll grow up sooner or later when his idealistic view of life comes crashing down around him and he starts getting up at 5AM to go to a job he doesn't care about and then looks at his pay stub and wonders why whoever the hell "FICA" is is getting 3 of his 9 bucks an hour.

I have to admit, though, the lil' feller seems pretty well-read, but how much can anyone at the tender age of 13 really know about life in the real world? Most definitely not enough for me to worry about. Booksmarts are easy; anyone can do that. Common sense is the toughie.

Incidentally, jim; before you start telling me all about how you're never going to get a job you hate, let me just tell you now that your current attitude's going to KEEP you in jobs you hate. People that tell everyone they're wrong and stupid can't really afford to be choosy in thier search for jobs because they get past very few first interviews, so you might want to look into a minor tolerance adjustment in your attitude sometime between now and the time you graduate from college. You got some time, so don't hurt yourself dashing to the library to find "Attitude Adjustment For Dummies". Have a little fun between now and then, and we'll all get a great laugh out of it. Hell, I already am...

At 5/27/03 01:54 PM, el_foka wrote:

Fuck you idiot. There is no controversy. If you claim to wish to cause controversy, start by not stating it, all you do is wind up getting flamed by people like me who know better than to get suckered into a crap flame war started for no real purpose. Stirring up shit would not be your forte gnarlycar, might I suggest suicide? And to your "Lol", why even bother with it? You seem to not understand the point of creating controversy is to undermine, by saying "Let's start some is asine".

Good grief, dude... I called someone a dork and a meanie, and you go off on me. Taking this a little too seriously, are ya? I didn't mention anything about anyone's mom, or thier wieght, or thier perverted sexual desires, or even what thier girlfriends looked like. I just called the PC a name most popular among the preschool set and you go completely ballistic. Could I take this as a statement to your emotional maturity?

It seems you kind of contradicted yourself by the length of the paragraph you wrote, as well. You say something about the fact that I don't know how to create controversy and then go off cussing at me and trying to tell me everything you know about starting controversy in a half page diatribe. And you even refer to yourself in there as someone who "know(s) better than to get suckered into a crap flame war that serves no purpose". I'd say you been suckered, and if I were a casual onlooker here, I'd say that I did indeed "stir up shit", at least with you. And with what? By calling your beloved Politics Group DORKS and MEANIES! If you're going to be that easy I can see the fun going out of this in a big hurry.

How about we all just lighten up; just a little, mmmkay?

By the way... I think the word (or at least the spelling) you were looking for would be "asinine", and your punctuation could use some work. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and pay a little more attention in english, okeedokey?

It's always been my experience that people who "point out the idiocy" for the sole purpose of pointing out the idiocy are usually people who are trying to draw attention away from some less than becoming quality in themselves.
I'm just going to guess that jimsween's not the kid at school that all the guys wanna be and all the babes wanna be with. But I could be wrong...

Oh..almost forgot.. LOL!

apparently 17 ain't enough... guess I gotta get a little more vocal...

ok...let's see...people who aren't in the DAG are dorks, people who are in the DAG are cool, people who are in the PC are meanies...there, that oughtta create some controversy...LOL

just wanted to post and see if my lollipop's still there or if I got a fist yet...

At 5/21/03 01:29 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Drugs are not a victimless crime. The big ones (crack/heroin) are made in the rainforests of Brazil by millionaires with BILLIONS of dollars inn the bank and private armies at their command. They will force an entire village to farm nothing but their opium poppy, and then they will kill the entire village after a year or so, so that they dont tell.

If nobodyu used drugs, there would be no little tribes in the rainforest getting shot all the time.

If drugs WERE NOT ILLEGAL, there would be no little tribes in the rainforest getting shot all the time.

Drugs ARE a victimless crime, and if they weren't illegal, there'd be no reason to hide deep in the rainforest to produce them, and thier production could be managed by legitimate businessmen who don't see fit to kill people to get it done. The reason these violent druglords are rich is because of the laws against it, and because of those laws, it takes a violent criminal to provide the product.
Why are they billionaires? Because they have to hide in the middle of nowhere to produce thier product and they expect to get paid for the trouble of doing that, on top of the grave risk involved. Take that risk away, and they don't get rich.

Produce drugs under controlled conditions right in the middle of town behind a legitimate storefront, and 75% of the overhead is gone. Structure the price in such a way that it would be about the same to the user (because that's what they're used to paying; the market will bear it), let the manufacturer make some decent money, and take the difference in tax revenue to use for drug education and any number of other things we never seem to have enough money for, like prison space and schools.

Something being wrong DOES NOT equal the need for a law against it. I think everyone would agree that adultery is wrong, but there ain't anyone sitting in jail right now for it, at least not in the US.

Drugs themselves do not make people do things they wouldn't already have the inclination to do. Drugs do not make people bad. People who are already bad use drugs. Not all drug users are bad, but most bad people are drug users. That's where the law is wrong. It turns the casual drug user into a criminal for no good reason.

I used a LOT of drugs in the few years that I used. A little speed, a little hash, and a LOT of weed. I still have many friends who are drug users, most of whom just smoke some dope from time to time. There's nothing wrong with it. I have to question the intelligence of anyone using crack or heroin or any shit like that, but the simple act of their using those things doesn't make them bad people, just stupid.

When are people going to realize that making things illegal does not stop people from doing it? Murder, rape, and theft are illegal, and people still do that. People should be punished for harming others, and that's what laws are for. The simple act of using drugs harms no one, in and of itself. It's the fact that they're illegal that's harmful to society.

At 5/21/03 12:18 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: You can't, however, deny the hard, physiological effects of drugs and their impact. Can you honestly tell me that someone hooked on heroin and crack is better off than if they weren't?

Repealing drug lwas may reduce some drug-related crime, but the point you're missing here is that drugs are illegal for a reason.

Just because drugs are bad for people is not a reason to make them illegal. I'm not missing the point at all. The government and citizenry that supports these laws are the ones who are missing the point. I won't deny the hard physiological effects of drugs, but the fact of the matter is that laws do not affect whether someone uses drugs or not. If the law was changed, all the same people would be using drugs and/or not using drugs, but our government wouldn't be wasting thier time and our money trying to put a stop to it.

You also said something about drugs promoting illegal activity. If the drug laws were lifted, 90% of that activity would no longer be illegal. Whether drugs are legal or not, people will still steal to get money for them, and we'd still want to enforce our laws regarding theft. But, if drugs weren't illegal, we would'nt have to enforce so many other laws that we're wasting time and money on now.

Look again at the state of Nevada. Prostitution and gambling are legal, and their crime rate isn't all that different from any other state. They don't have a population of gambling whore-mongers running all over the place and running the state. Just because prostitution and gambling are legal doesn't mean everyone's going to do them. There's no more people doing it there than anywhere else, the difference is that they don't spend any money or time trying to stop it.

We can't govern morality, and it's about time we quit trying.

The same could be said for prostitution, but the state of Nevada seems to be doing OK.

Ultimately, the people who are using drugs now don't care if it's illegal or not, and the ones that don't use them have other reasons that have nothing to do with the law for not doing it, so the law itself isn't recognized by anyone other than politicians, and does nothing for society but cost money for enforcement, the lives of the people enforcing it and the lives of those who get caught breaking it.

Eliminate the law and let the government regulate everything related to the sale and use of drugs and they become safer for the user, and better for society in general, due to the increased revenue gained by the elimination of the enforcement organizations and the excess prison space, and the funds gained by their regulation.

OK, I got your attention...

Let's really think about it, though. What is inherently wrong with the actual act of using drugs? Nothing. There's nothing wrong in making, transporting, or selling drugs either. What's wrong is the things that people might do under the influence of drugs, and that's what they should be punished for.

Would the use of drugs increase if they were legalized? No, because there's enough education out there right now that everyone knows how dangerous they all are. Does anyone actually think that the people who don't use drugs now are going to start just because they're legalized? They're not, because the reason they don't use them now has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with thier own set of values. The people with values low enough that they might want to use drugs don't care if they're legal or not.

I'm not saying all drugs should be completely legal. I think there should be an age minimum like there is with alcohol, and once you reach that, you do what you want. Sell it only in places like bars and liquor stores where kids aren't allowed, license the shit out of the sellers, tax the shit out of the buyers, and throw anyone who sells to minors in the klink for 20 years or so.

Now we can eliminate all these fuckin' money-pit "task forces" and "drug czars" whose only purpose is to shore up a political agenda for the party in power and grab votes from one of the largest voting groups, that being the old folks who still believe that if something's "morally wrong" there should be a law against it. We can also turn loose everyone in prison whose only crime was to come somehow in contact with drugs, buying, selling, using, etc., and commited no other crime. Imagine how much money our government could spend in more useful places if it didn't have to shell out 75k a year to house and feed every guy who got caught smoking dope a few times too often. Imagine how many gang-bangers would have to get real jobs. How many fewer gangs, period. Imagine how many fewer people would get killed, and how many fewer undercover agents put in danger in "drug deals gone bad". Hell, what could the government do if the entire budget of the DEA was freed up for other things?

In addition to the increase in available government money, there would be a hell of a lot more room in our prisons for the people who commit REAL crimes, and are now being put back on the streets due to lack of space. Rob a liquor store? Spend 15 to 20 in the Graybar Hotel, and not this 3 to 5 crap they're getting now. Rape someone? You get 20 to life in the dirtiest, nastiest, maximum security shithole in the country where your new name becomes Tiffany, and your poopchute becomes the equivalent of the Holland Tunnel at rush hour for the rest of your miserable, pathetic life.

But, I digress...

I guess what I'm saying is drugs don't rob liquor stores or rape women or kill people. People do, and they should be punished accordingly, while the guy who just wants to have a little fun can do just that.

Incidentally, I'm a 38 year old married father of 2 teens, who doesn't drink, use drugs, lie, cheat or steal. I'm also a recovering drug addict who's been squeaky clean for 22 years. My kids know all about how much dope I smoked as a kid, and why I don't do it now. I take great pride in the example I set for my kids, and my only regrets are ever having let them see me smoke cigarettes or get speeding tickets. Thank God my wife doesn't do either of those...LOL

My position on drug laws is purely from a standpoint of having our government spend our money a little more wisely, and not at all because I condone or endorse the use of drugs. My decision not to is my choice, and should be only my choice, and not the choice of a wrinkled suit whose never been close to a smoldering bowl of buds, and doesn't pay any attention at all to the idea that alcohol is a major factor in as many crimes as any other drug.

OK...bring it on...